A History lesson on Marx and Socialism for you "liberals"

Bump for Truth!

This deserves a pin does it not? Not much to argue about but at least it will enlighten.

It doesn't seem the author has read Marx at all, certainly that is not what Marx had envisioned. Just the same, Obama and his agenda is to accelerate the social decline as his predecessor in Bush sought to ensure the rich would always have more than their fair share of wealth.

a poor man never gave anyone a job

oh my god, really? Have you read Marx? NO!!!! Its EXACTLY what he envisioned!!!! Hilarious shill....

+1

I can bring it all day long moran...and remember modern "liberals" are anything but liberal. Marx is not talking about you, you are him.

[link to econfaculty.gmu.edu]

The Attack on "Bourgeois Freedom"

Marx was a German of Jewish origin who lived much of his life in exile in France and Great Britain. He found much to object to in the prevalent political philosophy of his host countries - a philosophy then known generally as liberalism, as elaborated by such thinkers as John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, and Jean-Baptiste Say. Liberals saw themselves as advocates of liberty, and by liberty they meant the right of individuals to do as they pleased with their own lives and their own property. (Today, these "liberals" would probably be called "libertarians.")

While liberalism in the modern sense of the term tends to see the freedom to live as one pleases as quite distinct from the freedom to dispose of property as one pleases, the liberals of Marx's time usually saw these freedoms as closely connected. Personal freedom, as Locke for example saw it, was nothing else than self-ownership:

[E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This No Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property...
Second Treatise of Government

Or as Robert Overton, one of Locke's predecessors explained it:

To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature, not be to invaded or usurped by any: for everyone as he is himself, so he hath a self-propriety... No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man's; I may be but an individual, enjoy myself and my self-propriety, and may write myself no more than myself, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man's right.
An Arrow Against All Tyrants

Marx did not deny the close connection between personal freedom and property rights. Rather, he accepted their connection, and denounced both as manifestations of what he called "bourgeois freedom." The doctrine of the rights of man was faulty, according to Marx, because:

None of the supposed rights of man, therefore, go beyond the egoistic man, man as he is, as a member of civil society; that is, an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice... Thus man was not liberated from religion; he received religious liberty. He was not liberated from property; he received the liberty to own property. He was not liberated from the egoism of business; he received the liberty to engage in business.
On the Jewish Question


For Marx, freedom of religion or the freedom to own property are hollow freedoms, or at least grossly inadequate stepping stones to something better: ....

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
Manifesto of the Communist Party

Marx accuses the liberal tradition of slighting the social nature of man. "Liberty is, therefore, the right to do everything which does not harm others... It is a question of the liberty of man regarded as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself." Marx elaborates: "The right of property, is, therefore, the right to enjoy one's fortunes and dispose of it as he will; without regard for other men and independently of society... It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own liberty." (On the Jewish Question)

Marx's solution, the route to human emancipation, was Communism, which would give people the freedom that bourgeois society denies them. Communism is, he explains, "the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement, and therefore the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man... the complete return of man to himself as a social being..." (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844)

Innumerable social thinkers disagree with much of Marx's thought, but praise his reflections upon human freedom, the depth of his insight in contrast to the shallowness of liberalism. Yet it is difficult to understand how Marx's concept of freedom is anything more than a defense of tyranny and oppression.

The problem with "broad" notions of freedom is that they necessarily wind up condoning the violation of "narrow" notions of freedom. Under "bourgeois" notions of religious liberty, people may practice any religion they wish ("a private whim or caprice" as Marx calls it); how could this liberty be broadened, without sanctioning the persecution of some religious views?

Earlier anti-liberals directly attacked liberty as an evil. Marx adopted a different stance - to attack liberty under the guise of expanding it. In so doing, he re-packaged despotism to please modern sensibilities - a feat of intellectual marketing which would have profound consequences for hundreds of millions of people in the next century.

Socialism is the present and the future, when you choose to accept it is up to you.

Dude, as an Econ major I have read Marx. Boring reading in Hegelian dialectics saying the same thing over and over again. Multi-national corporations and wage exploitation have more to do with the collapse of the middle class as jobs have gone overseas where the costs of production are cheaper.

I agree there, but it got that way because of crony capitalism, interference by and preferential treatment from GOVERNMENT, not what our founding fathers envisioned.

Unfortunately it is working out to the communist advantage.

And communism is not the answer, but those currently in charge think it is, of course they won't become poor.

Thats the lie that is socialism, communism, etc. A ruling elite class who thinks they should rule over a serfdom of the poor, providing their every need.

I'll take a large ruling class, with a small government and less poor any day, wouldn't you.

See you at the front lines jack ass.

bumpitty bump

And I meant to add, if you really read him, and understood what you were reading, there is no way possible to refute what has been said here about what marx envisioned, because it IS what he wanted. Multi national corporations and wage exploitation are direct results of too much government, and the communists are stepping in saying they have the answer, which is just more government and more "equality"

again the choice is yours, nothing you can do about it.

Been developing for a very long time.

Karl Marx was one totally screwed up kid whose daddy made him keep all the jewish sabbaths and all the law and used to beat him around for being like the goyem. Then his daddy converted to Christianity for business reasons and little Karl went off his rocker.

Why anyone would even consider anything Karl Marx suggested is beyond me. The guy was obviously emotionally and mentally unstable. The story I described above is the exact reason why little Karl hated the middle class so much. He blamed the middle class for his daddy's actions, thereby, he essentially chose to believe that the middle class screwed him up and not his daddy.

Its always easier to blame those you don't love for what happened to you rather than accept that your daddy is a fraud.

Communism is state owned means of production.

Crony capitalism is fascist and politically corrupt.

Baracko's takeover of GM & AIG is a hybrid of communism and corrupt capitalism. Although I can somewhat sympathize with the need to bailout GM as it is or was such a large part of the US economy, but not to the extent of subverting bondholders to Unions. The 'ruling elite' is using their political power to insulate themselves against a declining economic base which has resulted from the very same policies which have caused the decline in the first place.

I am not a 'liberal' and prefer smaller government also, and this requires an awakened populace that is politically motivated to support those of similar political persuasion, and our 2 party system is shot to hell with special interests in control. Invoking hatred of a 'Marxist agenda' is just part of the blame game without addressing far more perverted practices behind the scenes controlling both sides of the equation.

again, see on the battlefield

mostly agree, except for the myth of Fascism and communism being polar opposites. Communism is the Adam and fascism is Eve of big government monarchism. They are basically one in the same, in all practical historical context. Hitler and Mussolini were big fans of Marx. The only difference really has been fascists are very nationalistic, communists will take all people under their dominion. Leaders and their cronys of both ideologies ran the means of production and benefited financially from them, both had one party rule, the communists just went one step further to put their countries name on the titles. Both involve a small, oligarchical ruling class presiding over a serfdom populace. In reality there is very little difference, of which I can provide loads of support for the argument.

You fail to differentiate between Marx's economic writings from his political critiques. One might reasonably conclude that the strength of the multi-national corporations resulted from too little governmental regulation as anti-trust Legislation of the early 20th Century were never enforced by the mid 80's and the mega mergers during the Reagan administration. We are back to crony capitalism as money bought out Washington, DC to do nothing while our factories went overseas and the US economy became more 'service' oriented away from manufacturing. Tax subsidies to encourage overseas investment is a valid argument that Big Government did too much, as is the passage of NAFTA, which although passed under Clinton, was the product of GHW Bush's efforts.


"the communists are stepping in saying they have the answer, which is just more government and more "equality" is accurate and part of the 'knee jerk' reaction going full circle. The left/right paradigm is the problem and not the solution, but what those of the left & right are after is the power to decide what is best for they themselves and the financial interests supporting both sides playing off the people. I do not support Marx's political views urging the masses to rise up and take back the means of economic production from the wealthy elite. I do support the efforts of those who espouse a more limited role of government without stripping out the regulations needed to ensure that the will of the people is truly being done.

"Communism is the Adam and fascism is Eve of big government monarchism."

Well stated, and original...)


If the objective is domination & control, then 'communism' and 'fascism' are just different means to the same end gone full circle. In historical context, communism in Russia was top down, and fascism was bottom up (Germany, not Italy). In the German sense, the common goal of attaining political power necessitated nationalism, in the Russian instance political power inherited a diverse base. Both sides eliminate the opposition, as we saw in the Light of Long Knives & work camps, as well as in the Gulags. The money behind the scenes remains in control under either scenario to the repression of the people, as you noted, and I concur.

Communism was the Jesuits way of destroying protestantism' returning the world to serfdom and blaming the jews for it all, in the process.

You might be on to something there. There is an obvious connection between the Jesuits, liberation theology, and socialist countries.

An interesting thing to note is what France has become and that they became socialist after slaughtering the Huguenots.

This is so lame. Most of you understand nothing about Marx's work, just as most Socialists and Communists don't.

Doesn't matter, he's dead, and so are his theories. Blaming him for our current administration just shows what lazy thinkers you really are.

No fucking kidding.

The essence of Marx boils down to the masses owning the means of productions - one could argue that employee stock options are Marxist.

Ironically, what is going on rigth now in teh global economy is EXACTLY what Marx had predicted - what he called the superstructure - the elite would take more and more from the working classes and squeeze them so much and get so fat off of them that the foundation of society would eventually collapse under their weight.

Marx was actually primarily an economic historian and a brilliant analyst, but what he advocted - bloody revolution, etc. was wrong-headed. In all of history his ideas were some of teh biggest threat to the powers that be but fortunately almost nobody has read anything he's written so his ideas are easily corrupted. But this American "thinker" has his theories completely bass-ackwards.

No fucking kidding.

The essence of Marx boils down to the masses owning the means of productions - one could argue that employee stock options are Marxist.

Ironically, what is going on rigth now in teh global economy is EXACTLY what Marx had predicted - what he called the superstructure - the elite would take more and more from the working classes and squeeze them so much and get so fat off of them that the foundation of society would eventually collapse under their weight.

Marx was actually primarily an economic historian and a brilliant analyst, but what he advocted - bloody revolution, etc. was wrong-headed. In all of history his ideas were some of teh biggest threat to the powers that be but fortunately almost nobody has read anything he's written so his ideas are easily corrupted. But this American "thinker" has his theories completely bass-ackwards.

The problem is that it depends on what is meant by 'state'.

State isn't as simple as just government or president for a start. Communism as practiced in the Soviet union was pretty much state capitalism - or cronyism. It was just as much an oligarchy as the Czars they replaced.

Marx - at least in some writings - envisioned the WORKERS owning the means of production - goes into his labour theory of value, etc.

Thanks for the support that the writer the OP posted was a bit off on Marx.

The thing about an economic historian like Marx was his over-simplification of all social history as the struggle over wages. Marx was extremely verbose in stating the same thing over and over ad nauseam. On one hand, Marx felt that communism was the future of capitalism as capitalism failed, and on the other the need for revolution to attain it was hell bent on anarchism. I did like the comments the OP posted as getting beyond some blogger's pre-election hype.

sigh, I just love you so -called experts who have probably gotten their synopsis of Marx from some snippet from a blogger. You just ignore the facts, his actual writings, and the absolute destruction his "ideas" have wrought on humanity to prevent your ego from admitting you don't know anything other than the shallow talking points you have read on the internet.