Marx In Disguise
Fred explains. Perhaps the right words for Marx are dangerous idiot rather
than Useful Idiot. The latter phrase was
Lenin's but then Vladimir Ilyich was dangerous, evil
full of hate.
Dictatorship Of The
Proletariat
The workers were going to
run things for the benefit of everybody? Sounds plausible until you start
thinking about it. It didn't happen of course but it fooled various people. That was
the point.
The
Communist Manifesto
Is their 1848 advertising prospectus. It tells us:-
In short, the Communists everywhere
support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and
political order of things.
The Communists disdain to conceal
their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be
attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social
conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a
world to win.
You can't say that Karl was beating about the bush but you can say that the
BBC eagerly ignores the truth.
Intellectuals Are Slobs
Tells us inter alia that Marx got his maid servant up the duff
and foisted his bastard onto Engels.
Quotes About Jews by Jews -
Stormfront
QUOTE
"What is the basis of
Judaism? A practical passion and greed for profit. To what can we reduce his
(the Jew's) religious worship? To extortion. What is his real God? Cash!" - Karl
Marx, founder of Communism, quoted in the British Guardian, July-August, 1924.
UNQUOTE
This one is checkable.
Karl Marx ex Wiki
QUOTE
Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was a
German
philosopher,
political economist,
historian,
political theorist,
sociologist,
communist, and
revolutionary, whose ideas played a significant role in the development of
modern
communism and
socialism.
Marx summarized his approach in the first line of chapter one of
The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: "The history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of
class struggles."
Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy". In section one of The Communist Manifesto Marx describes feudalism, capitalism, and the role internal social contradictions play in the historical process:
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged ... the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes ... The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring order into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.
Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socio-economic change. He argued that the structural contradictions within capitalism necessitate its end, giving way to socialism:
The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
—(The Communist Manifesto)
On the other hand, Marx argued that socio-economic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. He argued that capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas and the ideology of Marxism began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution........
Marx is typically cited, with
Émile Durkheim and
Max Weber,
as one of the three principal architects of modern
social science.[13]
Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human
history.[14][15].
UNQUOTE
This lot was written by
a fan. So try the next one.
Marx Was An Intellectual
Crook
QUOTE
Pipes believes its [Communism's] failure was inevitable both because its
quest for an egalitarian society required an oppressive master-class whose
privilege rendered equality impossible, and because nationalism is a much
stronger force than class solidarity. I would add a third reason: Marx was
an intellectual crook, who faked, bent, or suppressed evidence to suit his
preconceived conclusions. His theory was thus inherently wrong and was
certain to fail when put into practice. Not least, Marx's dishonesty
deceived all his followers about the wealth-creating power and protean
resilience of market capitalism, which thus "buried" Communism, not the
other way round. It is worth noting, because it explains so much, that
Communism and capitalism are not polarities. Communism is the application of
an artificial man-made ideology. Capitalism is not an "ism" at all but a
natural process which tends to occur at a certain point of human
development, thereafter updating itself from time to time, as survival
dictates. Darwin can tell us more about it than Marx.
UNQUOTE
Sounds right to me. Pipes is an obnoxious
Jew.
Moses Hess ex Wiki
Made Marx a communist.
Karl Marx Still Has Followers After Achieving 100 Million Murders
[ 3 June 2018 ]
QUOTE
Most readers of Quadrant would have expected the 200th
anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx on May 5, 1818, to go largely
unnoticed................
In London and New York the anniversary was even more newsworthy. Some major newspapers responded as though Marxism was enjoying an intellectual revival, on the verge of the secular equivalent of a Second Coming.
The New York Times headlined: “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right”, and endorsed Marx’s alleged “originality and profound importance as a philosopher”, claiming:....................
In London, the Independent also declared Marxism was on the brink of something big: “The world is finally ready for Marxism as capitalism reaches the tipping point.”..............
The notion of a Marxist revival explains the otherwise difficult to comprehend electoral appeal to young people of those two aged white male socialists, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. Thanks to a combination of young electors and the blue-collar vote, Corbyn went close to winning the 2017 British election. Had Sanders been the Democrat candidate for US President instead of Hillary Clinton, opinion polls in May 2016 showed the same constituencies would have allowed him to beat Trump easily...........
The most pernicious of his package of ideas was Marx’s theory of
ideology. Marxism holds that, under capitalism, the dominant ideas, law,
morality and religious beliefs are simply expressions of the interests of
the ruling class, that is, the capitalists or bourgeoisie, though this is
often not apparent to its holders.
UNQUOTE
This article by
Keith Windschuttle is worth reading in full. He is a leftie who
decided that it was a mistake & that Marxism is a
dangerous delusion. BTW see The Black
Book of Communism regarding their massacres.
Capitalism, Socialism, and Nationalism: Lessons from History
QUOTE
The founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels, were just two of many radical critics of the industrial society. But
it was their achievement to devise the first internally consistent blueprint
for an alternative social order.
A mixture of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy, which represented the historical process as dialectical, and the political economy of David Ricardo, which posited diminishing returns for capital and an “iron” law of wages, Marxism took Carlyle’s revulsion against the industrial economy and substituted a utopia for nostalgia.
Marx himself was an odious individual. An unkempt scrounger and a savage polemicist, he liked to boast that his wife was “née Baroness von Westphalen” but was not above siring an illegitimate son by their maidservant. On the sole occasion when he applied for a job (as a railway clerk) he was rejected because his handwriting was so atrocious. He sought to play the stock market but was hopeless at it. For most of his life he therefore depended on handouts from Engels, for whom socialism was an evening hobby, along with foxhunting and womanizing; his day job was running one of his father’s cotton factories in Manchester (the patent product of which was known as Diamond Thread). No man in history has bitten the hand that fed him with greater gusto than Marx bit the hand of King Cotton.
The essence of Marxism was the belief that the industrial economy
was doomed to produce an intolerably unequal society divided between the
bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, and a property-less proletariat.
Capitalism inexorably demanded the concentration of capital in ever fewer
hands and the reduction of everyone else to wage slavery, which meant being
paid only “that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely
requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer.”
In chapter 32 of the first tome of Capital (1867), Marx prophesied the
inevitable
denouement:
Along
with the constant decrease of the number of
capitalist magnates, who
usurp and monopolize all the advantages of this process of
transformation, the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation and
exploitation grows; but with this there also grows the revolt of the
working class. . . .The centralization of the means of production and
the socialization of labor reach a point at which they become
incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst
asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The
expropriators are expropriated.
t is no coincidence that this passage has a Wagnerian quality, part
Götterdämmerung, part Parsifal. But by the time the book was published
the great composer had left the spirit of 1848 far behind. Instead it was
Eugene Pottier’s song “The Internationale” that became the anthem of
Marxism. Set to music by Pierre De Geyter, it urged the "servile masses”
to put aside their religious “superstitions " and national allegiances and
to make war on the “thieves " and their accomplices, the tyrants, the
generals, princes and peers. Before identifying why they were wrong,
we need to acknowledge what Marx and his disciples were right about.
Inequality did increase as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Between
1780 and 1830 output per laborer in the United Kingdom grew over 25
percent but wages rose barely 5 percent. The proportion of national
income going to the top percentile of the population rose from 25 percent
in 1801 to 35 percent in 1848. In Paris in 1820, around 9percent of the
population was classified as “proprietors and rentiers” (living from
their investments) and owned 41percent of recorded wealth. By 1911 their
share had risen to52 percent. In Prussia, the share of income going to
the top5 percent rose from 21 percent in 1854 to 27 percent in 1896
and to 43 percent in 1913. 12 Industrial societies, it seems clear, grew
more unequal over the course of the nineteenth century. This had
predictable consequences. In the Hamburg cholera epidemic of 1892, for
example, the mortality rate for individuals with an income of less than
800 marks a year was thirteen times higher than that for individuals
earning over 50,000 marks............................
UNQUOTE
By
