• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 41.1%
  • No

    Votes: 43 58.9%

  • Total voters
    73
Well I own my home, and run a home business from this property. If I did not own this property I would spend the money that I do on it for the improvements that I need, if I had no guarantee of retaining the property through out my life or until I decide to sell it and move or give it to my kids or anyone that I want too. WHy do Socialists insist on telling people like myself that they are not morally allowed to own private property? Who died and made you guys the moral police? Seriously it is a honest question. So you see no necessary purpose for owning private property but I do, what gives you the right to dictate your opinions on me? Cant we just live in a diverse society where the people that want to own private property have that liberty and the people who dont want to own private property retain that liberty as well?

BTW private property is one of the huge pitfalls that Marx made. Marx had to demoralize owning private property in order for his proposed society to work. Marx also had to demoralize other common concepts of society in order to make his plan work as well. Marx did not apply Occam's razor in his ramblings and tried to assert ridiculous impossible schemes instead of admitting his mistake and starting over. It is such mistakes that crippled Marxism from the beginning and is why as any Communist will tell you that there never has been REAL Communism. There never will be, its a dead ideology because of the huge mistakes with in it.

You misunderstand. If property were a need, I would support it's distribution, just as I support providing basic needs. But the fact is, property is not needed to live your life, so I don't see a reason for it's distribution. I would assume that most socialists would support the abolition of private property rights in favor of equal or somewhat equal property rights for all.
 
You misunderstand. If property were a need, I would support it's distribution, just as I support providing basic needs. But the fact is, property is not needed to live your life, so I don't see a reason for it's distribution. I would assume that most socialists would support the abolition of private property rights in favor of equal or somewhat equal property rights for all.

Interesting. But most things are not needed to live your life. If I chose I could get by on the bare minimums to survive. Like for example the internet and the devices that I use to access it. I dont need clothes unless its required by weather.

Who exactly in a socialist society decides what I need to live my life? And if I defy such advice would I be arrested for it? Or just penalized so much that I wont be able to keep what I decided that I need or want? Must I go before a panel of my peers like the neighborhood association and plea with them if I want something? Or are we to stop everything and vote each time a person wants to do something? I want to take a hike so we all vote on it and if we approve I get to go hiking? What if I am capable of manufacturing something that is better than anything that anyone else has? Do we then start producing it so that everyone has one?


The gist of my questioning is that I have liberties and freedoms that I feel are sacred and unchangeable. Socialism as I understand it and as you keep confirming for me, takes those liberties away. I own my house right now no payments other than property tax and upkeep. I worked my ass off for a great deal of time to acquire this home to shelter my family and myself. I did not need it to be provided to me. What is morally wrong with that? I have asked this of other Socialists and they have always avoided answering which has bolstered my hate of such a system. Why cant I own my home?
 
Interesting. But most things are not needed to live your life. If I chose I could get by on the bare minimums to survive. Like for example the internet and the devices that I use to access it. I dont need clothes unless its required by weather.

Who exactly in a socialist society decides what I need to live my life? And if I defy such advice would I be arrested for it? Or just penalized so much that I wont be able to keep what I decided that I need or want? Must I go before a panel of my peers like the neighborhood association and plea with them if I want something? Or are we to stop everything and vote each time a person wants to do something? I want to take a hike so we all vote on it and if we approve I get to go hiking? What if I am capable of manufacturing something that is better than anything that anyone else has? Do we then start producing it so that everyone has one?


The gist of my questioning is that I have liberties and freedoms that I feel are sacred and unchangeable. Socialism as I understand it and as you keep confirming for me, takes those liberties away. I own my house right now no payments other than property tax and upkeep. I worked my ass off for a great deal of time to acquire this home to shelter my family and myself. I did not need it to be provided to me. What is morally wrong with that? I have asked this of other Socialists and they have always avoided answering which has bolstered my hate of such a system. Why cant I own my home?

Well I'm not really a total socialist, albeit I do have socialist leanings, so I can't answer all of these questions. However, I am not saying that because people don't need something, they shouldn't have the ability to obtain it. IMO, if something is needed for survival, such as food or healthcare, the government should provide those things. If it's something that is not needed, such as property or capital, I see no reason for the government to intervene on a large scale. People have the ability to attempt to buy, own, and sell property. Whether or not they are successful in this endeavor is another question.
 
Well I'm not really a total socialist, albeit I do have socialist leanings, so I can't answer all of these questions. However, I am not saying that because people don't need something, they shouldn't have the ability to obtain it. IMO, if something is needed for survival, such as food or healthcare, the government should provide those things. If it's something that is not needed, such as property or capital, I see no reason for the government to intervene on a large scale. People have the ability to attempt to buy, own, and sell property. Whether or not they are successful in this endeavor is another question.

Im not a Socialist at all lol. But I do understand the moral reasoning behind providing the basics of human survival to a population. Healthcare for one is a moral issue and letting people die out of lack money is immoral no matter the circumstances. The moral issue of empty houses and homeless people needs addressing. ANd many other issues that Socialism (in general) at least attempts to address is note worthy. I just dont agree with the methods really. Marx set out to change the way people think about everyday issues but got stuck on what he considered a rational solution. His implementation of his solutions I find intellectually insulting. For the most because of his narrow mindedness, but really because he chose to villonize all that would oppose his ideas. I have talked to many Socialists in my lifetime (mostly in person though) and just about all of them when I disagreed on any point that they made out came the McCarthyism accusations or they assign me to the Rightwing. I always found this odd, so I researched Marx and others involved in Socialism. But it goes back to Marx himself and his creation of a system of thought that makes the believer think that Marx's ideas are better than anyone elses. Its exceptionalism. So in this case its Marxist Exceptionalism. And as anything related to exceptionalism is to be avoided, I tend to avoid the concept altogether based on my individualistic nature.

The sad part is that Marx created a adversary advantage for those that he wished to undermine. The key concepts of a moral society where no one goes hungry, everyone has shelter and we take care of our own peoples basic needs. Turned into merely a ploy of a ideology locked in battle with the established ideologies. Meanwhile oppositional forces aimed to villionize those key concepts of humanity inherent in every community since written history was started. A rational man would never let anyone suffer to make a budget meet its goals.

Personally I think that there is a better way. But that way could only be done with the support of everyone in society. Ideological differences are as primitive as tribal conflicts. Not surprising that our primitive instincts are not gone since we have barely gripped the edge of our global cultural crib. Perhaps someday you and I and everyone else can throw away our prides and differences and work together for a greater society. But alas I dont see that happening in my lifetime at least.
 
Im not a Socialist at all lol. But I do understand the moral reasoning behind providing the basics of human survival to a population. Healthcare for one is a moral issue and letting people die out of lack money is immoral no matter the circumstances. The moral issue of empty houses and homeless people needs addressing. ANd many other issues that Socialism (in general) at least attempts to address is note worthy. I just dont agree with the methods really. Marx set out to change the way people think about everyday issues but got stuck on what he considered a rational solution. His implementation of his solutions I find intellectually insulting. For the most because of his narrow mindedness, but really because he chose to villonize all that would oppose his ideas. I have talked to many Socialists in my lifetime (mostly in person though) and just about all of them when I disagreed on any point that they made out came the McCarthyism accusations or they assign me to the Rightwing. I always found this odd, so I researched Marx and others involved in Socialism. But it goes back to Marx himself and his creation of a system of thought that makes the believer think that Marx's ideas are better than anyone elses. Its exceptionalism. So in this case its Marxist Exceptionalism. And as anything related to exceptionalism is to be avoided, I tend to avoid the concept altogether based on my individualistic nature.

The sad part is that Marx created a adversary advantage for those that he wished to undermine. The key concepts of a moral society where no one goes hungry, everyone has shelter and we take care of our own peoples basic needs. Turned into merely a ploy of a ideology locked in battle with the established ideologies. Meanwhile oppositional forces aimed to villionize those key concepts of humanity inherent in every community since written history was started. A rational man would never let anyone suffer to make a budget meet its goals.

Personally I think that there is a better way. But that way could only be done with the support of everyone in society. Ideological differences are as primitive as tribal conflicts. Not surprising that our primitive instincts are not gone since we have barely gripped the edge of our global cultural crib. Perhaps someday you and I and everyone else can throw away our prides and differences and work together for a greater society. But alas I dont see that happening in my lifetime at least.

A hypothetical socialist society, or any society for that matter, should always have free speech, the right to vote (or mandatory voting), democracy and/or republicanism, meaning that if the people don't support socialism, socialist policies would not be implemented. I think this is Marx's largest flaw in his solution for capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. If someone is going to disagree with socialism in a socialist society, they should have every right to, just as people currently have the right to disagree with capitalism in today's capitalist society.

I think that Marxism has issues that nearly all ideologies have: they recognize the issue with the status quo, but the solution is not necessarily a perfect one.
 
1. the Manifesto of the Communist party goes to great lengths to whine about Capitalism. Then later Marx writes a volume about Capitalism. Dude theres no conspiracy its ****ing in the history books. Dont deny the obvious dude it does nothing for your arguments. Everyone knows that Das Kapital is in support of Communism for ****s sake. Now you might have an argument if Das Kapital was written prior to the Manifesto.


2. Marx wanted everyone to accept his philosophies about society. The best population to indoctrinate are the ones that are suffering at the hands of the rich and powerful. So Marx created a philosophy that catered to the part of society that he believed through his writings would rise up and end all that he despised. It is classic social manipulation. Much like rallying a population behind patriotism or religion. Which is something that Marx talked about and knew well. It must of pained him to need to tell the world that religion is a opiate while knowing the he needed the opiate of blind anger to bolster support for his philosophies.

I am not in a debate with Karl Marx, I am actually typing to a what I suspect is a living being (you).

3. Let me point out that Marx always talked about unfettered Capitalism. So to his credit unfettered Capitalism is dead. But he failed to note that Capitalism can be regulated. Which is understandable since he couldnt acknowledge something that undermines the Communist Party. You must know that Marx's goal was for Communism to spread right? Why do you think that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist manifesto? The manifesto was for a political party. Political parties do what?


4. But the biggest folly of Marx is Communism itself. See for Communism to exist in the way that Marx predicted Marx needed Capitalism to exist as unfettered and unregulated. In Marx's time that seemed to be the direction that Capitalism was going. But Capitalism has never actually existed in modern society as a unfettered unregulated economic system. SO in order for anyone to accept Marx's predictions about Capitalism one would need to disconnect from history and replace it with the antiqued meanderings of a dead man that never saw or understood modern society. Its much like Americas forefathers could not fathom the complexities of modern America using their antiqued knowledge that they had while lived so long a go. That isnt to say though that Marx and this countries forefathers didnt get some thing correct in their predictions. Marx makes a lot of sense if we frame Capitalism as being unfettered instead of regulated. Though his predictions of the eventual slide into Socialism and Communism are silly since we could just regulate Capitalism instead. it certainly isnt social science law that Capitalism will take the path that Marx predicted. More like wishful thinking. I mean it is possible that something other than Socialism/Communism could be invented that replaces Capitalism. It was extremely short sighted and biased of Marx to assume that his model could be the only model.

So in that context I am not a strong supporter of Capitalism because certainly a better economic system could be invented in the future. But Socialism and Communism are poor replacements that are not any better than Capitalism, no reason to go there.

1. Who gives a ****, I really don't care when the communist manifesto was written, it's simply not that useful for analysis of Capitalism, Kapital is, if you're going to judge whether Marx was right about Capitalism read Kapital and judge him on what he said. I don't care what the motivation was for writing Kapital, I care about whehter it's true or not.

2. I really could not give less of a **** about ad hominem attacks against a dude who died over 100 years ago .... what I care about is whether the analysis in Kapital (whatever the motivation for writing it was, I don't know I'm not a psychoanalyst and neither are you), is true or not, so far I've seen evidence that the analysis IS true, and you haven't given any arguemnts against it at all.

3. Did he talk about unfettered Capitalism? Where? Where in Kapital did he? BTW in Kapital he assumed unregulated Capitalism, because anyone that analysis capitalism theoreticall must do so, because regulations can come and go, but the point is to analyse it at the core. (also he DID aknowledge that Capitalism can be regulated).

4. What the hell are you talking about? So is Your argument that Marx was wrong about about Capitalism because he didn't think of regulations? Are you ****ting me? The point is he WAS right based on the fact that Capitalism DOES need regulations constantly and constant state boosting to exist, and Guess what, Marx's system successfully predicted ever growing Bubbles and crashes, financialization of the economy, a declining rate of profit in the productive industries and growing and growing inequality .... can those Things be mediated by regulations? Sure, but that doesn't disprove Marx's analysis.
 
images


I always felt like Karl took trolling too far.
 
1. Who gives a ****, I really don't care when the communist manifesto was written, it's simply not that useful for analysis of Capitalism, Kapital is, if you're going to judge whether Marx was right about Capitalism read Kapital and judge him on what he said. I don't care what the motivation was for writing Kapital, I care about whehter it's true or not.
Well I wasnt using the Communist Manifesto analyse Capitalism. :roll:

2. I really could not give less of a **** about ad hominem attacks against a dude who died over 100 years ago .... what I care about is whether the analysis in Kapital (whatever the motivation for writing it was, I don't know I'm not a psychoanalyst and neither are you), is true or not, so far I've seen evidence that the analysis IS true, and you haven't given any arguemnts against it at all.
That would be your opinion.

3. Did he talk about unfettered Capitalism? Where? Where in Kapital did he?
Interresting question perhaps you could tell me where since in the next sentence you assert that Marx was talking about unfettered Capitalism.

BTW in Kapital he assumed unregulated Capitalism, because anyone that analysis capitalism theoreticall must do so, because regulations can come and go, but the point is to analyse it at the core. (also he DID aknowledge that Capitalism can be regulated).
Sounds like a big hole in his analysis to me. But his point wasnt to fix Capitalism his point was to replace it. That is wjhy I brought up the Communist Manifesto because Das Kapital aims to build on the ideas that Marx DEFINITIVELY brought up in the Communist Manifesto.

4. What the hell are you talking about?
Probably not what you think but do go on.

So is Your argument that Marx was wrong about about Capitalism because he didn't think of regulations? Are you ****ting me? The point is he WAS right based on the fact that Capitalism DOES need regulations constantly and constant state boosting to exist, and Guess what, Marx's system successfully predicted ever growing Bubbles and crashes, financialization of the economy, a declining rate of profit in the productive industries and growing and growing inequality .... can those Things be mediated by regulations? Sure, but that doesn't disprove Marx's analysis.
Everything needs regulation to a certain extent, Capitalism and Socialism are no different.

By Marx's analysis you mean stating the ****ing obvious. Karl Marx was born in 1818, America was in a Depression then. prior to that was the Copper panic of 1789, Panic of 1785, Panic of 1797, 1802–1804 recession, Depression of 1807, 1812 recession, 1815–21 depression. Notice a pattern there? I hardly think that it took Marx to notice it.

The US has never had completely free markets no unfettered Capitalism. It has always been regulated to a certain degree which for the most part has progressively been strengthened over time. The panic of 1825 had to do with a bubble. 7 year old Marx wasnt even thinking about economics yet. Inequality was all around Marx while growing up. In fact one could say that all that Marx did was convey the world as he saw it while he was alive. Nothing was ground breaking in Das Kapital. Even his rhetoric was old by then.

I suspect that what you see as Marx's prophetic predictions are not actually predictions but merely a talking point in order to promote an ideology. While slamming the only thing that stand sin the way of that competing ideology.
 
1. Well I wasnt using the Communist Manifesto analyse Capitalism. :roll:

2. That would be your opinion.

3. Interresting question perhaps you could tell me where since in the next sentence you assert that Marx was talking about unfettered Capitalism.

4. Sounds like a big hole in his analysis to me. But his point wasnt to fix Capitalism his point was to replace it. That is wjhy I brought up the Communist Manifesto because Das Kapital aims to build on the ideas that Marx DEFINITIVELY brought up in the Communist Manifesto.

5. Probably not what you think but do go on.

Everything needs regulation to a certain extent, Capitalism and Socialism are no different.

By Marx's analysis you mean stating the ****ing obvious. Karl Marx was born in 1818, America was in a Depression then. prior to that was the Copper panic of 1789, Panic of 1785, Panic of 1797, 1802–1804 recession, Depression of 1807, 1812 recession, 1815–21 depression. Notice a pattern there? I hardly think that it took Marx to notice it.

The US has never had completely free markets no unfettered Capitalism. It has always been regulated to a certain degree which for the most part has progressively been strengthened over time. The panic of 1825 had to do with a bubble. 7 year old Marx wasnt even thinking about economics yet. Inequality was all around Marx while growing up. In fact one could say that all that Marx did was convey the world as he saw it while he was alive. Nothing was ground breaking in Das Kapital. Even his rhetoric was old by then.

I suspect that what you see as Marx's prophetic predictions are not actually predictions but merely a talking point in order to promote an ideology. While slamming the only thing that stand sin the way of that competing ideology.

1. Ok but this thread was about if Marx was right about CAPITALISM.

2. If you have any actual arguments against marx's Capital (that arn't ad hominem attacks) then by all means show me.

3. He didn't use the Word unfettered Capitalism .... he wasn't going on about it, he was using unregulated capitalism as his basis for analysis, as every classical Economist does.

4. How is that a hole in his analysis? Every theoretical writing assumes certain conditions, and Marx assumed capitalism unregulated, had he assumed certain regulations then his analysis would only apply to systems With those regulations, but Marx's analysis applies to Capitalism in it's fundementals.

5. Karl Marx wasn't writing about America, he wasn't American, he never lived in America, the point is Marx' analysis has Applied, and if People had thought of what Marx showed in his analysis prior then show me, the point Marx made stands though, Capitalism, at its core, has internal contradictions that lead to it self destructing. Predicting the financialization, the fact that the rate of profit would continously fall for the productive industries and so on, that inequality would GROW, were not by all means self evident, InFact People still deny them and claim that capitalism in it's pure form is Perfect and sustainable.

The fact is you haven't read Kapital, nor have you actually studied what Marx wrote in Kapital and what his analysis of Capitalism IS, you just don't like the guy, which quite frankly no one cares about, if you haven't studied the analysis in Kapital, you're speaking out of ignorance.
 
1. Ok but this thread was about if Marx was right about CAPITALISM.
I will not be bound by silly restraints especially when it is still on topic.

2. If you have any actual arguments against marx's Capital (that arn't ad hominem attacks) then by all means show me.
I will say what I want about Marx dont get all but hurt over it.

3. He didn't use the Word unfettered Capitalism .... he wasn't going on about it, he was using unregulated capitalism as his basis for analysis, as every classical Economist does.
Unfettered is the same as unregulated.


unregulated (ʌnˈrɛɡjʊˌleɪtɪd)

— adj
not regulated; uncontrolled
----------------------------
un·fet·ter [uhn-fet-er]
verb (used with object)
1. to release from fetters.
2. to free from restraint; liberate.


See its the same concept. When you free something from restraint it is unregulated.

4. How is that a hole in his analysis? Every theoretical writing assumes certain conditions, and Marx assumed capitalism unregulated, had he assumed certain regulations then his analysis would only apply to systems With those regulations, but Marx's analysis applies to Capitalism in it's fundementals.
Well has unregulated Capitalism ever actually existed in its true form? His so called analysis of Capitalism is synonymous with observing that unregulated school children on the playground will be troublesome. Duh of course if the markets are not regulated then greedy bastards will screw us all over. One doesnt need to write a book to come to that conclusion.

5. Karl Marx wasn't writing about America, he wasn't American, he never lived in America, the point is Marx' analysis has Applied, and if People had thought of what Marx showed in his analysis prior then show me, the point Marx made stands though, Capitalism, at its core, has internal contradictions that lead to it self destructing. Predicting the financialization, the fact that the rate of profit would continously fall for the productive industries and so on, that inequality would GROW, were not by all means self evident, InFact People still deny them and claim that capitalism in it's pure form is Perfect and sustainable.
The events that i stated happened before he was born and before he was a adult, Germany was not a so called third world country, its people were able to obtain information from the US freely. Besides the fact that those things that I listed were not going on just in the US. Its basic economic history FFS. WHich was readily available to Marx throughout his life.

The fact is you haven't read Kapital, nor have you actually studied what Marx wrote in Kapital and what his analysis of Capitalism IS, you just don't like the guy, which quite frankly no one cares about, if you haven't studied the analysis in Kapital, you're speaking out of ignorance.
Settle down there, I can not like Marx if I like. I dont care if you like the dead man or not. And yes I have indeed read Das Kapital just because I dont have the same analysis of it as you do doesnt mean that I havent read it.

The full name is Capital: Critique of Political Economy.
 
Well I own my home, and run a home business from this property.
Well you are the worker. You own that means of production.

WHy do Socialists insist on telling people like myself that they are not morally allowed to own private property?
Because of the profit value. Why should a "owner" be the man who gets the profit. Why should he get the profit and live off the exploitation of labor? To be truly free the workers who make toil for a living should control that workplace instead of sending off a part of their labor to a "owner".

Who died and made you guys the moral police?
Never said I was the "moral police". Its an economic polciy, not a morality issue.
So you see no necessary purpose for owning private property but I do, what gives you the right to dictate your opinions on me?
Not dictating anything. Simply sharing my beliefs.

Cant we just live in a diverse society where the people that want to own private property have that liberty and the people who dont want to own private property retain that liberty as well?
Who hates liberty?
 
Well you are the worker. You own that means of production.
Down below you mention workers being truly free. That is my point whether is work form my home or not I just want to be free to live in my own home.


Because of the profit value. Why should a "owner" be the man who gets the profit. Why should he get the profit and live off the exploitation of labor? To be truly free the workers who make toil for a living should control that workplace instead of sending off a part of their labor to a "owner".
You avoided my question. But I will answer yours.

A worker when they get a job to work for someone else they made a agreement. The agreement is that they will do some work for the employer for a agreed on compensation amount. It is up to the worker to refuse to work for someone that isnt paying what they demand for their work. Many jobs create ZERO product. They are a service. Now in America we can get our buddies together if we choose and provide a service, for example land scapeing. That works out good for you and your buddies. But guess what you have to give some of the earnings for the work that you did to your buddies. You all are going to share expenses gas and what not. But if you and your buddies cannot get any jobs lined up you wont make any profits. So one of you or perhaps all of you work together to get more work to do. That is additional labor on the individual or the group. But it may take away valuable time from the actual land scapeing that you guys do. A solution is to hire someone to do the book keeping and marketing for you especially if you have no clue how to do that.

We cant all be book keepers or any of the other long list of job descriptions that are available in the work force. Some people like to migrate around a country. They have a set of skills that they are willing to market for work. There is ZERO wrong with willing working for someone else and being paid what you two agreed on.

So I fail to see that in all cases that exploitation is a concern, or that being a worker is immoral. Changing it form a single employer to a co-op is only moving the goal posts the same potential problems are persistent in both case. Both require some form of regulation for it to work. After all a co-op could be a co-op of assholes.



Never said I was the "moral police". Its an economic polciy, not a morality issue.
You can deny being the moral police but when you assert that it is morally wrong to own private property because it is a form of exploitation then you are passing a moral judgement. And whats more the assumption that Socialist make is that owning private property is unfair to other citizens and that the owner should be penalized for such transgressions. How dare someone think that they can own private property and **** on everyone else? It is a moral issue for Socialists.

Not dictating anything. Simply sharing my beliefs.
No not now are you dictating anything, that is very obvious. But given the chance what then? Say that your beliefs became our reality, where you cant hide behind it being just a belief of your?


Who hates liberty?
Plenty people do, though they rationalize it away saying to themselves that its for the good of society. That is how prohibitions become laws. Or how theocracies get started. Socialists, tea party Libertarians rationalize that their beliefs are righteous and that everyone should be compelled to jump on the bandwagon. The nay sayers will see and will agree given the chance to live in such a society.

The beauty of diversity is that we come together and teach each other the best of our beliefs. The beliefs that harm or otherwise make others uncomfortable are swept to the side. Isnt that what drives Democratic Socialism? Why not be open to other good things from other people? We all have ideas, some good and some bad. A community serves the purpose of weeding out the bad ideas. This board that we are speaking on serves this purpose for myself. I am exposed to many ideas and I share my own ideas that I learn through conversation sometimes, that some are bad ideas. I learn and move on. But whatever'ists seem to never learn and just keep moving on with the bad ideas, never learning a thing. My ideology is no ideology.
 
1. I will not be bound by silly restraints especially when it is still on topic.

2. I will say what I want about Marx dont get all but hurt over it.

3. Unfettered is the same as unregulated.


unregulated (ʌnˈrɛɡjʊˌleɪtɪd)

— adj
not regulated; uncontrolled
----------------------------
un·fet·ter [uhn-fet-er]
verb (used with object)
1. to release from fetters.
2. to free from restraint; liberate.


See its the same concept. When you free something from restraint it is unregulated.

4. Well has unregulated Capitalism ever actually existed in its true form? His so called analysis of Capitalism is synonymous with observing that unregulated school children on the playground will be troublesome. Duh of course if the markets are not regulated then greedy bastards will screw us all over. One doesnt need to write a book to come to that conclusion.

5. The events that i stated happened before he was born and before he was a adult, Germany was not a so called third world country, its people were able to obtain information from the US freely. Besides the fact that those things that I listed were not going on just in the US. Its basic economic history FFS. WHich was readily available to Marx throughout his life.

6.Settle down there, I can not like Marx if I like. I dont care if you like the dead man or not. And yes I have indeed read Das Kapital just because I dont have the same analysis of it as you do doesnt mean that I havent read it.

The full name is Capital: Critique of Political Economy.

1. THe topic is "Was Karl Marx right about Capitalism" not "was Karl Marx right about everything."

2. You can say all you want about Your psycho analyzing of Marx, but none of it is relevant.

3. My point in brining that out was to show, that you haven't read Kapital, and are thus speaking out of ignorance (which is obvious).

4. Analyzing unregulated School children will tell you more about the nature of children than studying regulated children .... that was Marx's point, to study the NATURE of Capitalism.

5. Ok ....

6. No one, NO ONE cares whether or not you or I like Marx as a person.

If you have read Kapital, and don't agree With it, why can't you offer ONE just ONE critique of it that is actually an economic critique and not an ad homimen .... I mean it's pathetic that after all these posts you haven't offered one.
 
1. THe topic is "Was Karl Marx right about Capitalism" not "was Karl Marx right about everything."

2. You can say all you want about Your psycho analyzing of Marx, but none of it is relevant.

3. My point in brining that out was to show, that you haven't read Kapital, and are thus speaking out of ignorance (which is obvious).

4. Analyzing unregulated School children will tell you more about the nature of children than studying regulated children .... that was Marx's point, to study the NATURE of Capitalism.

5. Ok ....

6. No one, NO ONE cares whether or not you or I like Marx as a person.

If you have read Kapital, and don't agree With it, why can't you offer ONE just ONE critique of it that is actually an economic critique and not an ad homimen .... I mean it's pathetic that after all these posts you haven't offered one.

Sigh... Its just amazing to watch you do that. Since you do that over and over again (no matter the subject or who you are talking too) I suspect that you believe that actually works in a debate.

Hint: If I or anyone for that matter says anything that you disagree with you dont actually need to make a comment about it. And if you feel something is off topic FFS ignore it.

And for the record I have been addressing Marx's Capital: Critique of Political Economy. You just dont agree with my assertions. So therefor out comes the silliness and accusations aimed at me personally. And quit misusing ad hominem if you dont understand what it means dont use it. I can call Marx every name in the book in a debate UNLESS I was in a debate with him but hes dead so that isnt going to ever happen. What I cannot do is call you names or any other poster. You also might want to ****ing learn wth critique means while you are at it.

Here is the problem (Im repeating myself here so if you want to spend this thinking of a new way to insult me that might be more fun for you) is that Das Kapital goes in great detail about the pitfalls of a system that doesnt exist in the real world. Marx builds a strawman then unleashes his bull**** on it in typical fanatical Marx style. Then SOcialists all around the world point to Das Kapital and try to relate it to the real world and because of that huge bias they indeed find things that appear to them because of their great bias that hit home for them. ANd lowe and behold to them Marx is right!. But of course Marx is dead correct on certain things but they are things that any da,mn fool could have seen during his time.


ANd if you read this far: Surplus value is a crock of ****. The assumption that Marx makes is that all employers are magically compelled to be greedy assholes because they cant help it because of Capitalism, dictates that all people within a Capitalist system are 7 years olds with tiny reactionary brains. But really not everyone is ****ing greedy making Marxs unproven assertion a crock of ****. If everyone isnt mindless and greedy then Marx's assertions become silly and pointless. Das Kapital goes further than just analyzing unregulated Capitalism it counts on there being just unregulated Capitalism because he needed it to make Socialism look like it was the rational solution. That is why Das Kapital is a CRITIQUE and not science. Its propaganda aimed at pointing the reader towards Socialism and away from Capitalism.
 
Sigh... Its just amazing to watch you do that. Since you do that over and over again (no matter the subject or who you are talking too) I suspect that you believe that actually works in a debate.

Hint: If I or anyone for that matter says anything that you disagree with you dont actually need to make a comment about it. And if you feel something is off topic FFS ignore it.

And for the record I have been addressing Marx's Capital: Critique of Political Economy. You just dont agree with my assertions. So therefor out comes the silliness and accusations aimed at me personally. And quit misusing ad hominem if you dont understand what it means dont use it. I can call Marx every name in the book in a debate UNLESS I was in a debate with him but hes dead so that isnt going to ever happen. What I cannot do is call you names or any other poster. You also might want to ****ing learn wth critique means while you are at it.

Here is the problem (Im repeating myself here so if you want to spend this thinking of a new way to insult me that might be more fun for you) is that Das Kapital goes in great detail about the pitfalls of a system that doesnt exist in the real world. Marx builds a strawman then unleashes his bull**** on it in typical fanatical Marx style. Then SOcialists all around the world point to Das Kapital and try to relate it to the real world and because of that huge bias they indeed find things that appear to them because of their great bias that hit home for them. ANd lowe and behold to them Marx is right!. But of course Marx is dead correct on certain things but they are things that any da,mn fool could have seen during his time.


ANd if you read this far: Surplus value is a crock of ****. The assumption that Marx makes is that all employers are magically compelled to be greedy assholes because they cant help it because of Capitalism, dictates that all people within a Capitalist system are 7 years olds with tiny reactionary brains. But really not everyone is ****ing greedy making Marxs unproven assertion a crock of ****. If everyone isnt mindless and greedy then Marx's assertions become silly and pointless. Das Kapital goes further than just analyzing unregulated Capitalism it counts on there being just unregulated Capitalism because he needed it to make Socialism look like it was the rational solution. That is why Das Kapital is a CRITIQUE and not science. Its propaganda aimed at pointing the reader towards Socialism and away from Capitalism.


You didn't actually adress Marx's Capital, you made adhominen attacks on what you think his motivation was .... trying to psycho analyse him.

Why not actually dea With the actual economics in Marx's Capital.

The ONLY point you made was that there are no unfettered markets in reality, which isn't really a good argument because that's how economic analysis Works, you have to assume a framework, and he assumed the classical economic framework, i.e. what libertarians look toward (even the gold standard, which was the standard then).

Think about it, when you study human behavior, you study it under certain conditions and then apply it to the real world, and Your analysis can be verified or disverified by certain trends .... this is SIMPLY how economics Works, that's what economic theory is.

Surplus value theory isn't saying that anyone is a greedy asshole, it isn't making ANY judgement on personality (obviously you haven't studied Capital at all), it's saying that of the value produced a certain amount of it goes to the owners of the Capital, not for the value they produced, but simply because they are the owners of Capital, i.e. The owners of Capital recieve the surplus.

It has NOTHING to do With anyone being greedy or whatever, that is psychology, not economics, Kapital is about economics not psychology. ....
 
You didn't actually adress Marx's Capital, you made adhominen attacks on what you think his motivation was .... trying to psycho analyse him.

Why not actually dea With the actual economics in Marx's Capital.

The ONLY point you made was that there are no unfettered markets in reality, which isn't really a good argument because that's how economic analysis Works, you have to assume a framework, and he assumed the classical economic framework, i.e. what libertarians look toward (even the gold standard, which was the standard then).

Think about it, when you study human behavior, you study it under certain conditions and then apply it to the real world, and Your analysis can be verified or disverified by certain trends .... this is SIMPLY how economics Works, that's what economic theory is.

Surplus value theory isn't saying that anyone is a greedy asshole, it isn't making ANY judgement on personality (obviously you haven't studied Capital at all), it's saying that of the value produced a certain amount of it goes to the owners of the Capital, not for the value they produced, but simply because they are the owners of Capital, i.e. The owners of Capital recieve the surplus.

It has NOTHING to do With anyone being greedy or whatever, that is psychology, not economics, Kapital is about economics not psychology. ....

I always feel that people are pulling my leg, when they say I should deal with Marx's economics. I did the books and must say, that it is pretty drab stuff. I understand why he had a problem being simple as he does not use math. But he goes in all which ways and you might want to specify the precise piece of theoretical prophesy you refer to.
 
You didn't actually adress Marx's Capital, you made adhominen attacks on what you think his motivation was .... trying to psycho analyse him.

Why not actually dea With the actual economics in Marx's Capital.

The ONLY point you made was that there are no unfettered markets in reality, which isn't really a good argument because that's how economic analysis Works, you have to assume a framework, and he assumed the classical economic framework, i.e. what libertarians look toward (even the gold standard, which was the standard then).

Think about it, when you study human behavior, you study it under certain conditions and then apply it to the real world, and Your analysis can be verified or disverified by certain trends .... this is SIMPLY how economics Works, that's what economic theory is.

Surplus value theory isn't saying that anyone is a greedy asshole, it isn't making ANY judgement on personality (obviously you haven't studied Capital at all), it's saying that of the value produced a certain amount of it goes to the owners of the Capital, not for the value they produced, but simply because they are the owners of Capital, i.e. The owners of Capital recieve the surplus.

It has NOTHING to do With anyone being greedy or whatever, that is psychology, not economics, Kapital is about economics not psychology. ....

Quit telling me what I have or have not done.

When you study human behavior that is related to psychology. Right? So then psychology is a factor in Marx's Das Kapital actually a huge factor.

Surplus value is the social product which is over and above what is required for the producers to live. Marx was referring to Classism. In Das Kapital Marx mostly talks about surplus value. Marx explained that in a Capitalist society of wage earners that those worker were a commodity for those greedy bastards at the top. He asserts that workers become nothing more than capital to be traded and profited on. Damn those greedy bastards all workers should rise up against their oppressors viva the Revolution!.

Come on dont act as if we are stupid enough not to notice such simplistic overtones of the Communist Manifesto in Das Kapital. Das Kapital is a psychological tool to reach a goal. Das kapital only makes sense if you gulp down the kool aid that Marx was pedaling. Most good Socialists will worship Das Kapital to the grave never actually addressing that stark and obvious underpinnings of psychological manipulations that are trademark Marxism. To the Marxist they are correct and everyone else didnt actually read Das kapital, those non believers are the fools that keep the greedy bastards at the top and their lords. The main theme is always for the workers to rise up against their oppressors. I just cant get past that part and its the point of Das Kapital, and it being a main theme for Das Kapital puts that theme on the table of this debate on whether Marx was right or not about Capitalism. Marx like most people like him that want massive political changes to happens exploit the general populations want of a better life. Das Kapital is a continuation of the Communist Manifesto and the exploitation of the common man to to do the bidding of a madman that hated the culture in which he lived. We all want a better life, but we dont need to become Marxists to do that. There are ALWAYS options and never only a single way of doing something when it comes to politics.


SO no you cannot bury my head in the sand and pretend that I wont choke on it. Surplus value is what Das Kapital is all about. Everything else in Das Kapital was to support surplus value to convince the reader that Marx's assertions were valid about surplus value. Once he was able to convince the reader that as a worker they are being treated like Capital and as slaves then Marx's goal was achieved. It is very intellectually dishonest to manipulate people in such a manner and very insulting. Just as insulting as what he was saying about employers exploiting the workers. A intelligent reader might walk away from Das Kapital being pissed at employers and Marx for their exploitation of the common man. A honest man writing on economic theory would leave the emotional assertions to the side and only state the facts in true methods of science. But Marx never was good at numbers now was he?

So while you are disquieted at me psycho analyzing Marx you want me to ignore Marx's psycho analyzing of society? Why does Marx get to have all the fun?
 
Last edited:
Down below you mention workers being truly free. That is my point whether is work form my home or not I just want to be free to live in my own home.


You avoided my question. But I will answer yours.

A worker when they get a job to work for someone else they made a agreement. The agreement is that they will do some work for the employer for a agreed on compensation amount. It is up to the worker to refuse to work for someone that isnt paying what they demand for their work. Many jobs create ZERO product. They are a service. Now in America we can get our buddies together if we choose and provide a service, for example land scapeing. That works out good for you and your buddies. But guess what you have to give some of the earnings for the work that you did to your buddies. You all are going to share expenses gas and what not. But if you and your buddies cannot get any jobs lined up you wont make any profits. So one of you or perhaps all of you work together to get more work to do. That is additional labor on the individual or the group. But it may take away valuable time from the actual land scapeing that you guys do. A solution is to hire someone to do the book keeping and marketing for you especially if you have no clue how to do that.

We cant all be book keepers or any of the other long list of job descriptions that are available in the work force. Some people like to migrate around a country. They have a set of skills that they are willing to market for work. There is ZERO wrong with willing working for someone else and being paid what you two agreed on.

So I fail to see that in all cases that exploitation is a concern, or that being a worker is immoral. Changing it form a single employer to a co-op is only moving the goal posts the same potential problems are persistent in both case. Both require some form of regulation for it to work. After all a co-op could be a co-op of assholes.



You can deny being the moral police but when you assert that it is morally wrong to own private property because it is a form of exploitation then you are passing a moral judgement. And whats more the assumption that Socialist make is that owning private property is unfair to other citizens and that the owner should be penalized for such transgressions. How dare someone think that they can own private property and **** on everyone else? It is a moral issue for Socialists.

No not now are you dictating anything, that is very obvious. But given the chance what then? Say that your beliefs became our reality, where you cant hide behind it being just a belief of your?


Plenty people do, though they rationalize it away saying to themselves that its for the good of society. That is how prohibitions become laws. Or how theocracies get started. Socialists, tea party Libertarians rationalize that their beliefs are righteous and that everyone should be compelled to jump on the bandwagon. The nay sayers will see and will agree given the chance to live in such a society.

The beauty of diversity is that we come together and teach each other the best of our beliefs. The beliefs that harm or otherwise make others uncomfortable are swept to the side. Isnt that what drives Democratic Socialism? Why not be open to other good things from other people? We all have ideas, some good and some bad. A community serves the purpose of weeding out the bad ideas. This board that we are speaking on serves this purpose for myself. I am exposed to many ideas and I share my own ideas that I learn through conversation sometimes, that some are bad ideas. I learn and move on. But whatever'ists seem to never learn and just keep moving on with the bad ideas, never learning a thing. My ideology is no ideology.


Global Relief Foundation


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsbfOxUx8ZA




Global Relief Foundation
 
Global Relief Foundation


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsbfOxUx8ZA




Global Relief Foundation

Ok I watched it and I am wondering why you linked it?

Right away there some big red flags in this video that must sound great to Socialists but to the rest of us we are going to cry foul. The biggest is when Richard Wolff goes on about democracy. He is obviously preaching to the choir at this point because many Americans with any knowledge of our Constitution would have spoke out from the crowd at that point. Wolff is dangling a carrot in front of Americans making a point to exploit people in the need of jobs. Come to our side we have jobs! self-directed enterprises would require a magic trick in order to make it work. See not everyone cares enough about their job to invest themselves in it. And then the kicker that made me scratch my head, Italy as a good example. lol, Then there was the in eloquent pooh reaction to Capitalism. This guy must have drank his own kool aid it will be a cold day on the Sun when Republicans go along with such bias. Wolff's existed yet condescending method of delivering his speech/rant leaves a foul taste in the listeners mouth. It is a direct example of what I pointed out about Marx and his manipulation of the common people in order to exact a certain type of ideology that looks down on everyone who disagrees with their authoritative style of getting a message across, that is simply our way or the highway for you immoral Capitalists.


Perhaps WOlff did not sound that way to you (or perhaps he did?) but for the non believers we see right through his utopia crap. And BTW I own my own business because I was tired of dealing with the idiots I worked with. The last thing that I would ever do is depend on their voted in a business ran by us all. Wolff never even mentions the fact that most workers are not educated at ALL in how to run the many aspects of a business their votes would probably go with any propaganda that they were fed by their unions. Yes those idiots at work that spend their free time drinking beer and watching Duck Dynasty or some other rot mind reality show will be great business partners. I wonder what Wolff thinks should be done about the people that would exploit such a system,? I bet it didnt even cross his mind. And what about the businesses that fail who is going to prop them up after a disaster? There are countless other questions but for people like I mentioned above who have never ran a business of their own or have some training they have no clue and would believe this Wolff guy and take him at his word. Its sad really.
 
Quit telling me what I have or have not done.

When you study human behavior that is related to psychology. Right? So then psychology is a factor in Marx's Das Kapital actually a huge factor.

Surplus value is the social product which is over and above what is required for the producers to live. Marx was referring to Classism. In Das Kapital Marx mostly talks about surplus value. Marx explained that in a Capitalist society of wage earners that those worker were a commodity for those greedy bastards at the top. He asserts that workers become nothing more than capital to be traded and profited on. Damn those greedy bastards all workers should rise up against their oppressors viva the Revolution!.

Come on dont act as if we are stupid enough not to notice such simplistic overtones of the Communist Manifesto in Das Kapital. Das Kapital is a psychological tool to reach a goal. Das kapital only makes sense if you gulp down the kool aid that Marx was pedaling. Most good Socialists will worship Das Kapital to the grave never actually addressing that stark and obvious underpinnings of psychological manipulations that are trademark Marxism. To the Marxist they are correct and everyone else didnt actually read Das kapital, those non believers are the fools that keep the greedy bastards at the top and their lords. The main theme is always for the workers to rise up against their oppressors. I just cant get past that part and its the point of Das Kapital, and it being a main theme for Das Kapital puts that theme on the table of this debate on whether Marx was right or not about Capitalism. Marx like most people like him that want massive political changes to happens exploit the general populations want of a better life. Das Kapital is a continuation of the Communist Manifesto and the exploitation of the common man to to do the bidding of a madman that hated the culture in which he lived. We all want a better life, but we dont need to become Marxists to do that. There are ALWAYS options and never only a single way of doing something when it comes to politics.


SO no you cannot bury my head in the sand and pretend that I wont choke on it. Surplus value is what Das Kapital is all about. Everything else in Das Kapital was to support surplus value to convince the reader that Marx's assertions were valid about surplus value. Once he was able to convince the reader that as a worker they are being treated like Capital and as slaves then Marx's goal was achieved. It is very intellectually dishonest to manipulate people in such a manner and very insulting. Just as insulting as what he was saying about employers exploiting the workers. A intelligent reader might walk away from Das Kapital being pissed at employers and Marx for their exploitation of the common man. A honest man writing on economic theory would leave the emotional assertions to the side and only state the facts in true methods of science. But Marx never was good at numbers now was he?

So while you are disquieted at me psycho analyzing Marx you want me to ignore Marx's psycho analyzing of society? Why does Marx get to have all the fun?

Yes, but you arn't examining Marx's psychological assumptions or claims in Kapital, you're trying to psycho analyze Marx himself, which is the definition of an Ad Hominem attack.

Marx talks about many Things in Capital (it's 3 volumes).

Capital doesn't Call anyone greedy bastards ... and yes labor IS treated as a commodity that is traded, and yes, surplus value is taken and Distributed by the Capitalist, how is that not true?

Surplus value is basically synonymously used with profit, do you claim that profit doesn't exist?

I mean common, so far you haven't shown ANYTHING in Kapital that you can show is false?
 
Generally, we have quite the bunch of intelligent beings here at DP .. The vote was rather close ..I think that 20 years ago, it would have been 90% in favor of capitalism ...rather than todays 55% ...
I now believe that we should ( and we have ) embrace some "communist" tenets ... carefully ...
Surely, a 100% system (left or right) , works NOT.
 
The American left-with its ideas so good it needs to force everyone to comply. :2wave:
Just one example of a "lost" liberty ...
I am against being "forced" to do anything ! I'll NEVER forget being forced to pray in some Florida school at the age of 8 ..66 years ago !
 
Just one example of a "lost" liberty ...
I am against being "forced" to do anything ! I'll NEVER forget being forced to pray in some Florida school at the age of 8 ..66 years ago !

The horror!!! Stop living 66 years ago. Why don't progressives realize time have changed?

Tangentially, might I ask what your religion (or your parents) was when you were age 8 in the 1940s? Also, is it fair to hold people accountable from 66 years ago accountable today?

And, what does that have to do with modern progressives? In the 1940's, weren't they still pro-eugenics, etc?
 
Yes, but you arn't examining Marx's psychological assumptions or claims in Kapital, you're trying to psycho analyze Marx himself, which is the definition of an Ad Hominem attack.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

You are person A. Marx is not person A. You are not Karl Marx. I am not in a debate with Karl Marx.

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


You are Bill.

Marx talks about many Things in Capital (it's 3 volumes).

Capital doesn't Call anyone greedy bastards ... and yes labor IS treated as a commodity that is traded, and yes, surplus value is taken and Distributed by the Capitalist, how is that not true?
I never said that Kapital mentions the words greedy bastards. That was a very weak debate tactic. Please try something new.

Surplus value is basically synonymously used with profit, do you claim that profit doesn't exist?
Surplus value isnt the same as profit, but nice try. If surplus value was nothing more than just another way of saying profit then damn why did Marx devote so much time in Kapital writing about such a simplistic word? You make Marx look like a idiot with that argument.

I mean common, so far you haven't shown ANYTHING in Kapital that you can show is false?
So you are claiming that everything in Das Kapital has evidence? Or is it just your opinion that there is evidence?

Lets be completely honest what Das Kapital is: Das kapital | Define Das kapital at Dictionary.com


Das Kapital
Das Ka·pi·tal [German dahs kah-pi-tahl]
noun
a work (1867) by Karl Marx, dealing with economic, social, and political relations within society and containing the tenets on which modern communism is based.

Cultural Dictionary
Das Kapital [(dahs kah-pi- tahl )]

(3 vol., 1861, 1885, 1894) The greatest work by Karl Marx on economics; the title is German for “capital.” It describes the capitalist system in highly critical terms and predicts its defeat by socialism.

"Let us put the matter this way: Marx did not set out merely to explain the necessity of the social relations of capital. This would be an entirely one-sided view of Marx’s work, a view which can, under certain circumstances, transform Marxism into its opposite – into an instrument for ‘justifying’ these very social relations. ‘ The social relations of capitalism exist in a state of relative, not absolute, equilibrium, an equilibrium which must be overcome through the struggle of opposed forces which arise on the, basis of these social relations. In this way, Marx grasped always that investigator, if his work was to be truly scientific, must place at the very centre of his endeavours a conscious struggle to understand his own relationship to the forces being analysed; this in turn was, for Marx, inseparable from a study of his own struggle, in theory and in practice, to grasp these facts. Thus in the Communist Manifesto we read:

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of the old society, assumes such a violent. glaring character that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as therefore at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie; so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/ch04.htm

"Here Marx and Engels were in fact writing of themselves. On the basis of all their practical and theoretical work they alone at that stage ‘comprehended theoretically the historical movement as a whole’. They alone had been able to grasp the historical-revolutionary significance of the appearance of the working class, a class ‘in itself’ which had consciously to be transformed into a class ‘for itself’. The actual struggle to do this – and knowing that every aspect of one’s theoretical work was subordinated to this task as for Marx and Engels the real essence of objectivity. Theory could only be developed as an expression and instrument of a definite social force in history. Marx did not ‘criticize’ capitalist social relations merely by revealing the unresolved contradictions in the work of political economy. He sought to show that the very development of capitalism actually created an instrument – the modern working class – which was obliged in life, in practice, to ‘criticize’ capitalism, to ‘criticize’ political economy, a criticism the high point of which was the overthrow of the existing social relations. Here is the very heart of Marx’s ‘critique’ of political economy. Not only must the whole of Capital be seen from this point of view, but at the same time it provides the key to understanding how Marx develops his investigation over the three volumes."


Marxists agree with me, that Das Kapital istnt just a lowly science book about social sciences. Which means that Kapital is more than what YOU claim. Why hide it as if no idiot cant see it? Is there something that you are afraid of? Or have you not actually read Das kapital? lol
 
Back
Top Bottom