Karl Marx in more context.

[Rigby5]

Marx was a bullshit artist and fraud. Engels was a lair and Marx's publisher and fellow con artist, and a better writer than Marx; don't know why he kept Marx around in the first place, since he didn't need him and had to fake the guy's math for him anyway.

So much for Marx......The faux intellectual.

Except that he was right about the dangers of the industrial revolution causing more of a monopoly by those who control excess capital.
You can't claim he was a total fake or fraud when he not only was right, but leading edge, and way ahead of his time even in terms of ethics.

 

[Picaro]

Marx was a bullshit artist and fraud. Engels was a lair and Marx's publisher and fellow con artist, and a better writer than Marx; don't know why he kept Marx around in the first place, since he didn't need him and had to fake the guy's math for him anyway.

Maybe, I have little to go on. But it seems a little harsh. Surely Marx should be credited with at least recognizing the corruption of previous feudalism/aristocracy, and how the industrial revolution was forcing cottage industries out of business. His promoted solutions now seem vague and simplistic, but that has the advantages of hindsight. And Marx was still ahead of the pack.
But you could be right that he merely was taking credit. I don't see much of a motivation for Marx or Engels to be corrupt because it is not like they had anything to gain by promoting turning the system upside down. And they essentially were right. Just that we found unions and government regulations to work instead of the more drastic options.
However, we have not yet faced the extreme realities of the predictions of Malthus, since we used fossil fuels to put that off. And when fossil fuels are used up, we may once again be facing the predictions of Malthus? Then perhaps more drastic solutions may be the ONLY options?

Marx covers his social critiques in Vol. I, like the negative effects of mass immigration and that sort of observations, not all of it original; I said elsewhere I liked parts of Vol.I. Vol. II and by extension Vol. III are rubbish, fact math, ridiculous variables values, and fake results. Engels liked selling books and they both loved having people talk about them as if they were profound thinkers. Criticisms of 'Capitalism' don't all originate with Marx; they appear throughout history, re the corruption and amorality of merchants and bankers..

 

[Picaro]

Marx was a bullshit artist and fraud. Engels was a lair and Marx's publisher and fellow con artist, and a better writer than Marx; don't know why he kept Marx around in the first place, since he didn't need him and had to fake the guy's math for him anyway.

So much for Marx......The faux intellectual.

Except that he was right about the dangers of the industrial revolution causing more of a monopoly by those who control excess capital.
You can't claim he was a total fake or fraud when he not only was right, but leading edge, and way ahead of his time even in terms of ethics.

Others beat Marx to those critiques, and provided better solutions to the problems. Many businessmen themselves tried various progressive schemes on their own dime as well.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
“Look, America is no more a democracy than Russia is a Communist state. The governments of the U.S. and Russia are practically the same. There's only a difference of degree. We both have the same basic form of government: economic totalitarianism. In other words, the settlement to all questions, the solutions to all issues are determined not by what will make the people most healthy and happy in the bodies and their minds but by economics. Dollars or rubles. Economy uber alles. Let nothing interfere with economic growth, even though that growth is castrating truth, poisoning beauty, turning a continent into a shit-heap and riving an entire civilization insane. Don't spill the Coca-Cola, boys, and keep those monthly payments coming.”
― Tom Robbins, Another Roadside Attraction
...}

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Das Kapital, also known as Capital. Critique of Political Economy (German: Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, ...1867–1883) by Karl Marx is a foundational theoretical text in materialist philosophy, economics and politics.[1] Marx aimed to reveal the economic patterns underpinning the capitalist mode of production, in contrast to classical political economistssuch as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Marx did not live to publish the planned second and third parts, but they were both completed from his notes and published after his death by his colleague Friedrich Engels. Das Kapital is the most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950.
...}

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who was the brain behind Das Kapital?

The book or the actual concept?

Concept?
Mother Nature or God. Or Thor....whatever.

Capitalism is supported by human nature. Commie is not.

 

[Rigby5]

Marx was a bullshit artist and fraud. Engels was a lair and Marx's publisher and fellow con artist, and a better writer than Marx; don't know why he kept Marx around in the first place, since he didn't need him and had to fake the guy's math for him anyway.

Maybe, I have little to go on. But it seems a little harsh. Surely Marx should be credited with at least recognizing the corruption of previous feudalism/aristocracy, and how the industrial revolution was forcing cottage industries out of business. His promoted solutions now seem vague and simplistic, but that has the advantages of hindsight. And Marx was still ahead of the pack.
But you could be right that he merely was taking credit. I don't see much of a motivation for Marx or Engels to be corrupt because it is not like they had anything to gain by promoting turning the system upside down. And they essentially were right. Just that we found unions and government regulations to work instead of the more drastic options.
However, we have not yet faced the extreme realities of the predictions of Malthus, since we used fossil fuels to put that off. And when fossil fuels are used up, we may once again be facing the predictions of Malthus? Then perhaps more drastic solutions may be the ONLY options?

Marx covers his social critiques in Vol. I, like the negative effects of mass immigration and that sort of observations, not all of it original; I said elsewhere I liked parts of Vol.I. Vol. II and by extension Vol. III are rubbish, fact math, ridiculous variables values, and fake results. Engels liked selling books and they both loved having people talk about them as if they were profound thinkers. Criticisms of 'Capitalism' don't all originate with Marx; they appear throughout history, re the corruption and amorality of merchants and bankers..

Yes, but it was not until the industrial revolution that a serious solution became more necessary, and Marx is likely right that the best solution is the most collaborative one. After all, collaboration is the single most significant aspect of humanity that allowed use to ever survive at all. Much like the Meerkats of South Africa, individually we are easy prey for predators. It is only inherent empathy and willingness for self sacrifice for others that prevented human extinction for millions of years.

 

[Rigby5]

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Here are some more quotes:

"Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work."

Does this include women?

"Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense."

I like this.

Here is a prediction he made regarding the repeated implementation of his ideas:

What a bunch of nonsense.

He has no idea how humanity will turn out anymore than anyone else did/does.

People that blindly follow people 'the words of' ANYONE give me the creeps. They are either weak and/or ignorant.

You want the answers to life? You are just going to have to figure them out for yourself because NO ONE has all or even most of the answers.

There is nothing to follow. He didn't lay out a blueprint for how socialism would develop. It's just a theory based on historical observation and critical thought.

lol the commies all claim it's 'scientific n stuff', based on, like, 'rationalism'. Of course they're usually deranged idiots,so much for how grand 'rationalism' is.

It is science to understand human nature and how societies are created by human nature, as we evolved.
The only parts we have not figured out is that human nature evolved for small groupings like family, tribe, etc., and we are not sure how or what to try to scale up to state, nation, or global size.

 

[Rigby5]

Marx was a bullshit artist and fraud. Engels was a lair and Marx's publisher and fellow con artist, and a better writer than Marx; don't know why he kept Marx around in the first place, since he didn't need him and had to fake the guy's math for him anyway.

Maybe, I have little to go on. But it seems a little harsh. Surely Marx should be credited with at least recognizing the corruption of previous feudalism/aristocracy, and how the industrial revolution was forcing cottage industries out of business. His promoted solutions now seem vague and simplistic, but that has the advantages of hindsight. And Marx was still ahead of the pack.
But you could be right that he merely was taking credit. I don't see much of a motivation for Marx or Engels to be corrupt because it is not like they had anything to gain by promoting turning the system upside down. And they essentially were right. Just that we found unions and government regulations to work instead of the more drastic options.
However, we have not yet faced the extreme realities of the predictions of Malthus, since we used fossil fuels to put that off. And when fossil fuels are used up, we may once again be facing the predictions of Malthus? Then perhaps more drastic solutions may be the ONLY options?

Marx covers his social critiques in Vol. I, like the negative effects of mass immigration and that sort of observations, not all of it original; I said elsewhere I liked parts of Vol.I. Vol. II and by extension Vol. III are rubbish, fact math, ridiculous variables values, and fake results. Engels liked selling books and they both loved having people talk about them as if they were profound thinkers. Criticisms of 'Capitalism' don't all originate with Marx; they appear throughout history, re the corruption and amorality of merchants and bankers..

To be honest, I have actually read very little of Marx or Engels.
But we see dangers of capitalism in ancient Rome, when money blew away the republic.
The result was exploitation supplanted normal human values like empathy and cooperation.
That leads not only to slavery, circuses, etc., but too imperialism, colonialism, assassinations, etc., a complete break down of human values.
My point being that capitalism is too powerful, like a case of nitroglycerin, and has to be carefully regulated.
Unlike Marx I do not suggest anyone try to eliminate capitalism, not only because that would restricts individual freedoms, but because as long as any nation can use capitalism, all others must also, in order to prevent being defeated by it.
Consider capitalism as a sort of strategic weapon. You can't just unilaterally disarm yourself and hope to survive.

 

[Rigby5]

Who was the brain behind Das Kapital?

The book or the actual concept?

Concept?
Mother Nature or God. Or Thor....whatever.

Capitalism is supported by human nature. Commie is not.

That is not really true.
Human nature evolved for tight knit social groups like family and tribe, where cooperation and self sacrifice are the highest values and spontaneous emotional response.
Capitalism could not even have begun to exist until after there was excess production, after humans had abandoned hunter/gatherer culture and developed agricultural economies. Capitalism is only a few thousand years old, out of a 5 million year or more social evolution. And no noticeable evolution can happen in just a few thousand years.

Think about it.
With a hunter/gatherer group, did every single family have to have a successful hunt in order to not starve?
Of course not.
Not only would humans have gone extinct, but all the local prey animals would have quickly gone extinct first.
Clearly humans survived by minimizing their impact on local prey, by sharing the successful hunt of any member of the tribe.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is science to understand human nature and how societies are created by human nature, as we evolved.
The only parts we have not figured out is that human nature evolved for small groupings like family, tribe, etc., and we are not sure how or what to try to scale up to state, nation, or global size.

First, social groupings only work out of a sense of inherent connection (tribe/family). Those usually involve at least an acquaintance with all members.

Where communists and socialists ignore human nature is believing that people who are unconnected by tribal or family ties will freely work for their mutual benefit.

Humans are prideful, jealous, greedy, lazy shits. Those traits are primal. Those traits support survival and spreading of genes.

Capitalism harnesses those primal traits for the benefit of society.

Socialism and Communism do not.

Why? Because why work hard enough when one gets paid the same to half-ass it.

Why bust ass when your house will be exactly the same as your neighbors?

Why be productive when there is no fear of starvation or homelessness?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Human nature evolved for tight knit social groups like family and tribe, where cooperation and self sacrifice are the highest values and spontaneous emotional response.

I agree. It was because of a close tie, and sense of belonging. Communist/Socialism does not work that way.

Capitalism could not even have begun to exist until after there was excess production, after humans had abandoned hunter/gatherer culture and developed agricultural economies. Capitalism is only a few thousand years old, out of a 5 million year or more social evolution. And no noticeable evolution can happen in just a few thousand years.

Capitalism developed when peaceful trade developed. Period. End of story.

When a hunter got really good at hunting, he traded his excess with others for something of value.

A guy who got really good at building huts traded with the hunter for food.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It takes a whole lot of work to build a hut. The hunter would probably need to provide lots of food in exchange for the builder to build him said hut.

Wow. A value system has naturally emerged.

How could that happen?


.

 

[Tehon]

When a hunter got really good at hunting, he traded his excess with others for something of value.

That isn't capitalism.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When a hunter got really good at hunting, he traded his excess with others for something of value.

That isn't capitalism.

capitalism
noun
cap·i·tal·ism | \ ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm , ˈkap-tə-\
Definition of capitalism


: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Definition of CAPITALISM

Please tell me how the hunter trading his surplus for other goods or services is NOT capitalism.
Private ownership? Check
Capital goods? Check
Private decisions? Check
Prices, production, distribution determined by a free market? Check

Tell me where I am wrong.

 

[Tehon]

When a hunter got really good at hunting, he traded his excess with others for something of value.

That isn't capitalism.

capitalism
noun
cap·i·tal·ism | \ ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm , ˈkap-tə-\
Definition of capitalism


: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Definition of CAPITALISM

Please tell me how the hunter trading his surplus for other goods or services is NOT capitalism.
Private ownership? Check
Capital goods? Check
Private decisions? Check
Prices, production, distribution determined by a free market? Check

Tell me where I am wrong.

The answer to that relies on having an understanding of what capital is.

Capital is a commodity that is not intended to be consumed immediately but is instead used to create more capital.

What you described is a simple barter.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The answer to that relies on having an understanding of what capital is.

Capital is a commodity that is not intended to be consumed immediately but is instead used to create more capital.

What you described is a simple barter.

capital

noun (1)
Definition of capital (Entry 2 of 3)

1a(1): a stock of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period also : the value of these accumulated goods
(2): accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods
(3): accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income set capital and land and labor to work— G. B. Shaw
b(1): net worth : excess of assets over liabilities
(2): STOCK sense 7c(1)
c: persons holding capital : capitalists considered as a group
d: ADVANTAGE, GAINmake capital of the situation
e: a store of useful assets or advantages
Definition of CAPITAL

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, the lumberjack trading his lumber in exchange for food from the hunter would be exchange of capital, correct? (Lumber being capital)

(Lumber being used to make something else)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Capital is a commodity that is not intended to be consumed immediately but is instead used to create more capital.

So, give me an example of capital.

Money?

Investment and interest?

.

 

[Tehon]

So, the lumberjack trading his lumber in exchange for food from the hunter would be exchange of capital, correct? (Lumber being capital)

(Lumber being used to make something else)

No, because he is trading the lumber to satisfy a need. He intends to consume the food, not resell it to increase capital.