Posted on 03/28/2017 11:18:00 AM PDT by C19fan
The Orchard has acquired U.S. distribution rights to The Young Karl Marx, the latest film from Oscar-nominated I Am Not Your Negro director Raoul Peck. A fall theatrical release is planned for the pic, which bowed this year at Berlin. August Diehl, Stefan Konarske and Vicky Krieps star.
(Excerpt) Read more at deadline.com ...
three young Europeans of wealthy families (Karl, Friedrich and Jenny) who decided to change this utterly unequal world. And they eventually did; though not the way they imagined it.
/src on/Marxism would work great in practice if one had the right people running it./src off/
Marx later said he was not a “Marxist” as it was practiced.
Let us always remember the famous words of Marx....
“From each according to his belongings, to me according to my greed.”
What did he mean since he died in 1883? Was he talking about the Paris Commune?
He was speaking of the application of his ideas by the parties and people claiming to be Marxist. He did not believe these groups understood his system properly.
Gee, Marx was such a swell guy, wasn’t he? A veritable paragon of family virtues and financial responsibility.
They created a world in which everybody was equal, except that some were much more equal than others.
Marxism has killed millions.
But overthrowing the monarchs was a worthy goal. He grew up in the nasty era of the Prussian empire. And spent most of his life with despots and monarchs at his heels. So he runs to “freedom”, in the England of Charles Dickens and the hellish existence of the workers in the industrial revolution.
He and Engels wrote their book and the rest is history.
His thinking was muddled and most of his answers could be found in America 1.0 but he just couldn’t see it.
But he saw masses of abused European workers who were basically serfs, and some literally were. He saw monarchs that weren’t going to voluntarily go away. He saw a Vatican that was for the status quo.
So you gotta rise up I guess.
Wonder if he had any idea what his movement would turn into. Reading about the dude, it’s hard to imagine he would recognize Pol Pot or North Korea as what he thought would happen.
Sounds like a good topic for a movie, but probably impossible to get right. Some are guaranteed to deify him, and others think he’s Satan incarnate. I doubt anyone will see him as a guy who couldn’t figure out a non violent way to overthrow Europe’s monarchs.
I’ve always thought he would have benefited greatly by visiting America in that golden era.
Many Europeans who did visit have written about being overwhelmed that they could go anywhere, do anything, acquire land, elect the government, etc.
He couldn’t begin to understand the reality of a nation built on individual freedom...his fatal flaw.
I guess that is the quote that's been given as "If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist," and in other variants. So far as I can make out it referred to tactical disputes among French Communists. I'm not sure I understand it correctly, but it seems like one group of French Marxists was very radical and dismissed reformist planks in the platform. Marx felt those promises of reform were necessary to build the movement.
Marx wasn't thinking reform of the existing system was enough, but he recognized that more workers were attracted by promises of reform than by violent revolution. Or maybe I'm totally wrong about all that. Marx's son-in-law was one of the French Marxists he attacked, so maybe it was a family thing. In any case it was a throwaway line that proved useful in debates among Marxists later, not a thoroughgoing repudiation of his earlier thinking or of what his followers were doing.
I guess there was a young Marx and an old Marx -- or a bunch of different Marxes spread across his lifetime. It may be that the big change came when Engels and others tried to systematize "Marxism" as a "science." They could have said "these are some ideas our pal had," but instead they presented Marx as a proven system that could predict the future. Marx probably did think he could predict the future, but if he'd lived longer he would probably have gone on to contradict things he'd already said.
From my understanding KM thought that the change of system would not be a violent overthrow though he recognized that the bourgeois would not surrender power without a struggle and was in control of the state instruments of oppression: the police and the military, I think he believed that change would come because the internal contradictions of capitalism would produce the next stage of economic development.
I always found it kind of ironic that his magnum opus, Kapital, was based on the research he did in the British Library where he utilized government reports for his data.
Just one more movie to skip ... cannot afford the theater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.