Opinion of Karl Marx
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 27, 2022, 10:17:32 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of Karl Marx
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: ?
#1
FF
 
#2
HP
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 77

Author Topic: Opinion of Karl Marx  (Read 1260 times)
Christian Man
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,749
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: -0.87

P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2022, 07:49:41 PM »

Racist, radical athiest HP
Logged
Brandonton, FL
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,362


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2022, 07:56:10 PM »

The fact that this is even close is scary. Marx was terrible. Anybody so arrogant he claims his theory is the ONLY possible way human history will progress is WAY too high on his own supply.
Dog that is every philosopher ever
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2022, 10:44:42 PM »

HP and overrated; one wants to say that he would not have approved of the future uses of his ideas but his reaction to 1871 suggests that he well might have. What he wrote that was useful was not original -- J.S. Mill wrote about the tragedy of commons before Das Kapital, and the idea of materialist predictions of the future is in Malthus -- and what was original was not useful.

I wonder about the extent that he was actually a world-historical figure; revolutionary movements which seem obviously 'Marxist' in retrospect, like the Taiping (or even 1792), were perfectly capable of arising in total ignorance of his ideas. (Marx himself might've believed this, too, as a believer in materialism.)

That said, kind of an entertaining writer and the best that he's written is a fun read.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 37,147
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 21, 2022, 11:19:17 PM »

Overall HP.

I don't think he was generally evil or so, indeed identified problems with excessive capitalism, but his proposed "cures" were questionable all too often.

The big flaw with Marx was that he was good at identifying problems and extremely short on developing detailed 'cures' to those problems. His later acolytes stepped into the breach with... um... mixed results, but those by and large can't be laid at the feet of Marx the man.

He identified a good system (capitalism) and decided that it was a problem.

Itís worth bearing in mind that Marx didnít consider capitalism to be a problem in and of itself. He was actually surprisingly complementary of it in certain writings - he considered it a necessary stage in the upward progress of humanity that would soon be replaced by socialism (a further advance), a stance that marks him out from some other socialist thinkers of the time (Fourier) who regarded capitalism and its accoutrements (trade, investment) as bad in and of themselves.

One could argue that the 21st century version of capitalism, at least in Western democracies, would be considered socialism in 1840s year, and capitalism accordingly did evolve as marks wanted. Perhaps Marxism - leninism was a schism that missed the point of Marx's teachings?
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2022, 11:52:46 PM »

Overall HP.

I don't think he was generally evil or so, indeed identified problems with excessive capitalism, but his proposed "cures" were questionable all too often.

The big flaw with Marx was that he was good at identifying problems and extremely short on developing detailed 'cures' to those problems. His later acolytes stepped into the breach with... um... mixed results, but those by and large can't be laid at the feet of Marx the man.

He identified a good system (capitalism) and decided that it was a problem.

Itís worth bearing in mind that Marx didnít consider capitalism to be a problem in and of itself. He was actually surprisingly complementary of it in certain writings - he considered it a necessary stage in the upward progress of humanity that would soon be replaced by socialism (a further advance), a stance that marks him out from some other socialist thinkers of the time (Fourier) who regarded capitalism and its accoutrements (trade, investment) as bad in and of themselves.

One could argue that the 21st century version of capitalism, at least in Western democracies, would be considered socialism in 1840s year, and capitalism accordingly did evolve as marks wanted. Perhaps Marxism - leninism was a schism that missed the point of Marx's teachings?

There are lots of Marx quotes supporting violent revolution (or saying that violence is the only way to accomplish a proletarian revolution -- which was interestingly proven incorrect in 1989). You should really read some of the early Bolsheviks on this matter.

That also said, you are not the first person to suggest something like "the Revolution has already happened". Industrial workers uniting in anti-government unions and overthrowing hostile authoritarian governments simultaneously around the world has in fact already happened, in 1989-1992; what Marx got wrong was that they ended up demanding liberal capitalism and an end to communism forever.
Logged
TheReckoning
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,262
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 22, 2022, 02:23:56 AM »

Overall HP.

I don't think he was generally evil or so, indeed identified problems with excessive capitalism, but his proposed "cures" were questionable all too often.

The big flaw with Marx was that he was good at identifying problems and extremely short on developing detailed 'cures' to those problems. His later acolytes stepped into the breach with... um... mixed results, but those by and large can't be laid at the feet of Marx the man.

He identified a good system (capitalism) and decided that it was a problem.

Itís worth bearing in mind that Marx didnít consider capitalism to be a problem in and of itself. He was actually surprisingly complementary of it in certain writings - he considered it a necessary stage in the upward progress of humanity that would soon be replaced by socialism (a further advance), a stance that marks him out from some other socialist thinkers of the time (Fourier) who regarded capitalism and its accoutrements (trade, investment) as bad in and of themselves.

One could argue that the 21st century version of capitalism, at least in Western democracies, would be considered socialism in 1840s year, and capitalism accordingly did evolve as marks wanted. Perhaps Marxism - leninism was a schism that missed the point of Marx's teachings?

UmmÖ no. When Marx envisioned socialism in 1848, he didnít say ďSocialism is when the government builds roads and schools.Ē The concept of government spending was not a new concept at that time, and has been around for thousands of years. What Marx meant by socialism was a dictatorship of the proletariat- which never came to pass in the West. The fact that support for capitalism has increased over the years shows that he was wrong, and that through government welfare and intervention, capitalism can thrive and be potentially perpetually sustainable.
Logged
Atlas Gitmo Detainee
DeadPrez
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,570


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 22, 2022, 02:34:14 AM »

well he liked human action so
Logged
Yeahsayyeah
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 653


Political Matrix
E: -9.25, S: -8.15

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 22, 2022, 07:39:37 AM »

Every social democrat in Europe approves of Karl Marx. Even social democrats celebrated 200 years old birthday of Marx.

There is nothing left wing about you.

You cannot be a social democrat and disapprove of Marx because in that case you would not be a social democrat. You would also disapprove the entire history of social democracy.
What? Social democracy =/= Communism.

Karl Marx is an HP.

Marx was not a communist

Man, he literally founded the "League of Communists" and wrote the "Communist Manifesto" for this organization. I disapprove of the intellectual laziness showing in this thread to hold Marx accountable for the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc, and of course you don't need to be a communist of any sort to find value in Marx' and Marxist thought aren't communists, but this is really a stretch.
Logged
swamp fox
vitoNova
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 22, 2022, 07:50:05 AM »

A Great Jew man.

And also, Trier is overrated AF.   

The most unbelievably boring town on the Mosel.

And yes, I've literally been to them all.

Twice and thrice.   
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 22, 2022, 08:26:00 AM »


Logged
North Brabant Natlab Communists Revenge Tour
discovolante
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,839
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 22, 2022, 10:35:30 AM »

That also said, you are not the first person to suggest something like "the Revolution has already happened". Industrial workers uniting in anti-government unions and overthrowing hostile authoritarian governments simultaneously around the world has in fact already happened, in 1989-1992; what Marx got wrong was that they ended up demanding liberal capitalism and an end to communism forever.

Believe it or not, there was a brief shining moment when Solidarity hadn't yet started opportunistically courting Reagan and Thatcher to have The Pressure Of The West on their side, and even then plenty of them weren't too chuffed about it. Not to mention that not every Eastern Bloc regime fell like that, of course!
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,416
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.13, S: -4.72

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 22, 2022, 12:03:03 PM »


Communism literally didn't exist when Marx lived.

Even labour parties didn't.
Logged
Brandonton, FL
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,362


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 22, 2022, 01:59:05 PM »

My friend, what is the name of the Manifesto?
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,416
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.13, S: -4.72

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 22, 2022, 02:00:26 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2022, 02:05:50 PM by Laki »


It was never put into practice and Marx barely had any followers.

Labour parties also followed the manifesto early on. So social democracy is also built around the ideas of Marx. People here or especially in the US think Marx legacy is just marxism-leninism which is a myth. Every social democrat party their legacy is basically built on Marx but adapted to a modern world.

Lots of things and concepts we see as natural, are implemented, quite a lot even supported by modern conservatives. Unless conservative parties are suddenly in favour of (forced) child labour or against females having voting rights.

If i put a "lakigigarian manifesto" and someone 40 yrs later put it into practice, would it be still "lakigigarian". Probably not. It would be their "ideology" since they would put it into practice, and it would never be implemented the way i intended.

We don't know how Marx would've approved marxism-leninism, stalinism or communism because he was never alive to observe the effects of such a revolution. I'd especially be curious to bring him back, educate him on USSR and so on, and see what he would think about the "experiment" with all hindsight we have today.

He probably would still believe in something left wing today just like I would today, but I bet he would see the USSR as failed.

The only revolution he saw was the Paris commune. I'd support such a revolution back than and I'd still support it with hindsight, and the French state committed a lot of crimes destroying the Paris commune, killing tens of thousands of communards, including liberals, jacobins and republicans in the process.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,034
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 22, 2022, 02:04:54 PM »

A man so obviously of his time, which makes his work being the foundation of a entire extended family of political religion and cargo cult dictatorships that were relevant for most of the century after his death all the more tragicomic.  
Logged
Brandonton, FL
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,362


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 22, 2022, 03:04:16 PM »


It was never put into practice and Marx barely had any followers.

Labour parties also followed the manifesto early on. So social democracy is also built around the ideas of Marx. People here or especially in the US think Marx legacy is just marxism-leninism which is a myth. Every social democrat party their legacy is basically built on Marx but adapted to a modern world.

Lots of things and concepts we see as natural, are implemented, quite a lot even supported by modern conservatives. Unless conservative parties are suddenly in favour of (forced) child labour or against females having voting rights.

If i put a "lakigigarian manifesto" and someone 40 yrs later put it into practice, would it be still "lakigigarian". Probably not. It would be their "ideology" since they would put it into practice, and it would never be implemented the way i intended.

We don't know how Marx would've approved marxism-leninism, stalinism or communism because he was never alive to observe the effects of such a revolution. I'd especially be curious to bring him back, educate him on USSR and so on, and see what he would think about the "experiment" with all hindsight we have today.

He probably would still believe in something left wing today just like I would today, but I bet he would see the USSR as failed.

The only revolution he saw was the Paris commune. I'd support such a revolution back than and I'd still support it with hindsight, and the French state committed a lot of crimes destroying the Paris commune, killing tens of thousands of communards, including liberals, jacobins and republicans in the process.
I'm not sure I understand the point you're arguing so I do apologize if I'm way off the mark here.

But what I'm gathering from what you're saying is that Marx cannot be a communist be he never saw communism actually be implemented in his lifetime. Is that close to what you're saying?
Logged
NUPES Enjoyer
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 55,495
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 22, 2022, 05:03:20 PM »

I mean Marx used the term "communism" in his writings and back in 1848 he did to some extent self-identify as a communist, but it was more of a general "vibe" than a coherent political project. Communism as an organized, international political movement only structured itself in the 1920s as a product of WW1 and the Russian Revolution. So while it isn't exactly incorrect to call Marx a communists, it is genuinely historically misleading.

Marx's most direct political heirs are indeed the social-democratic and labor parties that emerged across continental Europe (UK Labour is a slightly different beast). These parties were directly inspired by Marxist theories and their organizational structure and political strategy was directly modeled on Marxist understandings of society. Of course these parties eventually deviated from Marxist ideology in important ways (although this happened later and less dramatically than is often assumed), but here's the thing: so did Lenin and the Bolsheviks who would come to structure 20th century communism. The Bolsheviks' theories and actions from around 1905 onward directly contradicted almost every orthodox Marxist principle, and as for the USSR itself, Marx would have very little good to say about it.

So I guess saying "Marx was a communist" and "Marx was a social democrat" are both true from a certain point of view, but both are also deeply misleading and are best avoided.
Logged
Mr. Ukucasha
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2022, 06:52:27 PM »

Anti-Semitic HP.

He literally hated Jewish people (despite being Jewish himself) and made several anti-Semitic remarks.
Logged
Brandonton, FL
SlamDunk
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,362


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2022, 08:49:32 PM »

I mean Marx used the term "communism" in his writings and back in 1848 he did to some extent self-identify as a communist, but it was more of a general "vibe" than a coherent political project. Communism as an organized, international political movement only structured itself in the 1920s as a product of WW1 and the Russian Revolution. So while it isn't exactly incorrect to call Marx a communists, it is genuinely historically misleading.

Marx's most direct political heirs are indeed the social-democratic and labor parties that emerged across continental Europe (UK Labour is a slightly different beast). These parties were directly inspired by Marxist theories and their organizational structure and political strategy was directly modeled on Marxist understandings of society. Of course these parties eventually deviated from Marxist ideology in important ways (although this happened later and less dramatically than is often assumed), but here's the thing: so did Lenin and the Bolsheviks who would come to structure 20th century communism. The Bolsheviks' theories and actions from around 1905 onward directly contradicted almost every orthodox Marxist principle, and as for the USSR itself, Marx would have very little good to say about it.

So I guess saying "Marx was a communist" and "Marx was a social democrat" are both true from a certain point of view, but both are also deeply misleading and are best avoided.
If this is what Laki is getting at then I don't have any major disagreements. The italicized is something I really wish a lot of Leninists would come to understand.
Logged
Charm City Circulator Purple Route Survivor
slimey56
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,159
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.46, S: -7.30

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 22, 2022, 10:51:54 PM »

Mixed. He was pretty good at pointing out the problems but the various attempts to implement his solutions haven't really out for the best. Unfortunately none of the human rights-abiding Socialist Internationale members, the syndicalist-influenced movements (1938 worst year of my life), nor a granola-minded grassroots activist who simply believes workers deserve fair conditions/wages for the value of their labor come to my mind when someone identifies as a Marxist. After all, the Free Speech Movement, a group I often look to as one of my primary ideological influences, coined the slogan "Never trust anybody over 30" to rebuff communist infiltration. They ain't care what Marx said, they were doing their own phucking sh**t.


Rather, I think of the Leninists and their numerous tankie-inclined offspring which for the most part perverted Marx's incomplete vision. They dismantled only hierarchical power structures which threatened their rule, if not subsumed those which worked to their benefits. In this regard I defer to those who suffered under Marxism-Leninism's words, such as my late papou recounting the childhood turmoil he endured during the Greek Civil War and others who codified how my terrorists can be other's freedom fighters because they weren't afraid to sock an abuser in the mouth:

Quote
Jagr's grandmother Jarmila told the boy about the first Jaromir Jagr, his grandfather and her husband. He was a farmer. When the Communists took over Czechoslovakia in 1948, the grandmother said, they appropriated all the privately owned farms. They collectivized his grandfather's fields and three quarters of his livestock. They left him with the house, barn and yard that the family still lives in todayóJagr, his grandmother, his parents and his uncle. (Jagr's sister, Jitka, is now married and lives 10 minutes away.) Then the authorities told Jagr's grandfather that he had to labor in the cooperative farm for free. His grandfather refused to work for those people who had stolen his farm. So he was thrown into jail, and he remained there for more than two years.

Jaromir Jagr, the hockey player, never knew Jaromir Jagr, the farmer. The grandson was born in 1972. The grandfather died in 1968, by coincidence during the glorious days of the Czechoslovakian freedom movement known as the Prague Spring. "He never knew that the Russians came back," Jagr says. But, of course, they did come back, and Jagr's grandmother made sure that he knew how, on Aug. 20-21, 1968, the troops rolled through Czechoslovakia to squash that fledgling movement in less than 48 hours.


"In school we were always taught the Soviet doctrine," Jagr says. "The U.S.A. was bad and wanted war. Russia was our friend and was preventing the United States from bombing us. Even my father didn't tell me the truth, because he was afraid I'd say something in school that would get us into trouble. But my grandmother, she told me the truth."

One day, sure enough, the teacher picked up Jagr's grade book to write down the score he had made on a test and found the photograph. Are you crazy, Jaromir? Take it out, she told him. So he did. But as soon as class was over, Jagr put the photograph of Ronald Reagan, president of the United States, back into his grade book. Jagr admired Reagan because he was somebody who stood up to the Communists, who had identified the Soviet Union as the "evil empire" that Jagr's family knew it to be. Month after month the teacher continued to find that photo of Reagan in Jagr's grade book, continued to admonish him, but she never confiscated it. And every time, when class was over, Jagr would slip it back into its place.

Jagr never forgot. That is why he admired Reagan. Why he has an American flag in his bedroom and two decals of Old Glory on the windshield of his car in Kladno. And why the young Penguin star, the flamboyant and seemingly carefree spirit, handsome, athletic and rich, wears number 68, after the Prague Spring of 1968, the spring that his grandfather died.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 23, 2022, 03:02:36 PM »

That also said, you are not the first person to suggest something like "the Revolution has already happened". Industrial workers uniting in anti-government unions and overthrowing hostile authoritarian governments simultaneously around the world has in fact already happened, in 1989-1992; what Marx got wrong was that they ended up demanding liberal capitalism and an end to communism forever.

Believe it or not, there was a brief shining moment when Solidarity hadn't yet started opportunistically courting Reagan and Thatcher to have The Pressure Of The West on their side, and even then plenty of them weren't too chuffed about it. Not to mention that not every Eastern Bloc regime fell like that, of course!

The subsequent history of democratic Poland and virtually every memoir or political statement from that period suggests they were in fact quite chuffed (and Reagan and Thatcher were popularly elected leaders with enormous mandates). That said, fair point on not every Eastern Bloc revolution happening through union activity -- but they all fell as a consequence of the initial Polish revolution (extending to regimes quite far afield supported by Soviet activity like Mongolia or Congo-Brazzaville), which was itself accomplished by industrial workers. It's close enough to 'world revolution caused by labor militancy' that it seems quite plausible to suggest that was it, and the circumstances obviously raise the question of 'what would a militant global movement of industrial workers actually want'? Economic liberalism seems, in fact, like the most plausible answer to this.
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,416
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.13, S: -4.72

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 23, 2022, 03:46:50 PM »

Overall HP.

I don't think he was generally evil or so, indeed identified problems with excessive capitalism, but his proposed "cures" were questionable all too often.

The big flaw with Marx was that he was good at identifying problems and extremely short on developing detailed 'cures' to those problems. His later acolytes stepped into the breach with... um... mixed results, but those by and large can't be laid at the feet of Marx the man.

He identified a good system (capitalism) and decided that it was a problem.

Oh let's go back to slavery, child labour and 14 hour long work days because half of US conservatives jerk themselves off on that thought...

WERE TALKING ABOUT 19TH CENTURY DUDE.

Really if i had one wish i could make true now, it would be to send you back to Europe anno 1850-1860 as an average working class person employed in some factory. Really curious to know how you would feel after a month.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 23, 2022, 04:11:35 PM »

Overall HP.

I don't think he was generally evil or so, indeed identified problems with excessive capitalism, but his proposed "cures" were questionable all too often.

The big flaw with Marx was that he was good at identifying problems and extremely short on developing detailed 'cures' to those problems. His later acolytes stepped into the breach with... um... mixed results, but those by and large can't be laid at the feet of Marx the man.

He identified a good system (capitalism) and decided that it was a problem.

Oh let's go back to slavery, child labour and 14 hour long work days because half of US conservatives jerk themselves off on that thought...

WERE TALKING ABOUT 19TH CENTURY DUDE.

Really if i had one wish i could make true now, it would be to send you back to Europe anno 1850-1860 as an average working class person employed in some factory. Really curious to know how you would feel after a month.

Obviously worse before all of the economic growth enabled by those factories. Do you want people 170 years from now to live better than we do by a similar magnitude, though?
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,416
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.13, S: -4.72

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2022, 04:19:55 PM »
« Edited: September 23, 2022, 04:24:07 PM by Laki »

Overall HP.

I don't think he was generally evil or so, indeed identified problems with excessive capitalism, but his proposed "cures" were questionable all too often.

The big flaw with Marx was that he was good at identifying problems and extremely short on developing detailed 'cures' to those problems. His later acolytes stepped into the breach with... um... mixed results, but those by and large can't be laid at the feet of Marx the man.

He identified a good system (capitalism) and decided that it was a problem.

Oh let's go back to slavery, child labour and 14 hour long work days because half of US conservatives jerk themselves off on that thought...

WERE TALKING ABOUT 19TH CENTURY DUDE.

Really if i had one wish i could make true now, it would be to send you back to Europe anno 1850-1860 as an average working class person employed in some factory. Really curious to know how you would feel after a month.

Obviously worse before all of the economic growth enabled by those factories. Do you want people 170 years from now to live better than we do by a similar magnitude, though?

No but Karl Marx isn't identifying problems of todays society, he was identifying problems within 19th century capitalism and imperialism.

I think we can all agree those were bad times and that something needed to change. The modern social democrat party compared to than would be framed as a communist revolution too. Even modern conservatives would be labor champions by those standards... because at least some support the status quo.

Politicians today who would overthrow a regime back than and implement the modern 21st century system (even neoliberalism) would be decapitated...

Quote
The Commune governed Paris for two months, establishing policies that tended toward a progressive, anti-religious system of social democracy, including the separation of church and state, self-policing, the remission of rent, the abolition of child labor, and the right of employees to take over an enterprise deserted by its owner. The Roman Catholic Churches and schools were closed. Feminist, socialist, communist and anarchist currents played important roles in the Commune. However, the various Communards had little more than two months to achieve their respective goals.

The national French Army suppressed the Commune at the end of May during La semaine sanglante ("The Bloody Week") beginning on 21 May 1871. The national forces killed in battle or quickly executed between 10,000 and 15,000 Communards, though one unconfirmed estimate from 1876 put the toll as high as 20,000.

Lots of policies we see as natural and established today, were policies Marx supported. Why do you think far-right frame our system as "cultural marxism". To some extent, a lot about this society is what Marx desired, not all, but a lot.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,570
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 24, 2022, 09:01:20 PM »


That is not a "slave society". That is a slave market or a slave trade route.

A "slave society" is one in which the labor force is predominantly made up of slaves, especially on in which the number of slaves equals or exceeds the free population. There is no way to maintain that system without an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, be it centrally organized or effected at the local level. It is basic common sense, otherwise there would be a slave revolt and the owners would be dead in short order.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 14 queries.