Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Karl Marx: "Proletariats Have No Fatherland"
The Omegaletter ^ | August 1, 2005 | Jack Kinsella

Posted on 08/01/2005 1:48:30 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush

One of the greatest anti-nationalists of modern times was Karl Marx, the father of the political philosophy of Marxism. One of his more revealing, but less famous quotes was the following: "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

Karl Marx taught that the world was divided into two powerful classes, the "'proletariat" (working class) and the "bourgeoisie" (wealthy ruling class).

Marxism sees the proletariat and bourgeoisie as directly waging an ongoing competition, in that capitalists exploit workers and workers try to resist exploitation. (This is the foundational principle behind modern US organized labor)

Marx's scientific socialism combined his economics and philosophy — including his theory of value and the concept of alienation—to demonstrate that throughout the course of human history, a profound struggle has developed between the "haves" and the "have-nots."

Marx claimed he had discovered the laws of history, laws that expose the contradictions of capitalism and the necessity of the class struggle. The more advanced the capitalist economy becomes, Marx argued, the greater these contradictions and conflicts. The more capitalism creates wealth, the more it sows the seeds of its own destruction.

Ultimately, Marx believed, the proletariat would realize that it has the collective power to overthrow the few remaining capitalists and, with them, the whole system.

Marx, together with Frederich Engels, penned the ten-point Communist Manifesto that a half-century later became the guiding philosophy of Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 October Revolution and founder of Russian Communism.

The Communist Manifesto can be distilled down to its ten major points:

1. Abolition of private property.

2. Progressive income tax.

3. Abolition of inheritance rights

4. Confiscation of property

5. A central banking system

6. Government control over communications and transportation.

7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture

8. Government control of labor.

9. Corporate farms and regional planning.

10. Free education for children in government-controlled schools.

If one were to remove the title, 'Communist Manifesto' from the top of the list, one could replace it with the ten major planks in the Democratic national platform.

The Democrats have elevated class warfare to an art form. The Democrats substitute the terms 'the people' for the 'proletariat' and 'big business' for the bourgeoisie, but other than that, every time a national Democrat makes a speech, you can count on hearing some variation on the same theme.

It was the Democrats who campaigned against tax cuts, arguing that it was an unfair burden on 'the working poor' (proletariat) and an unfair advantage for 'the rich' (bourgeoisie) (Communist Manifesto points 1 and 2)

The Democrats fought tooth and nail against the GOP plan to eliminate the inheritance tax, endorsed the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain ruling, and is reeling from the recently announced split in organized labor that threatens its power base. (Communist Manifesto points 3, 8)

The Federal Reserve Banking system (central banking) was introduced by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and the Banking Act of 1933 and the confiscation of privately owned gold was during the administration of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. (Communist Manifesto points 4-5)

One of the most powerful lobbies within the Democratic establishment is the National Education Association. Democrats abhor the idea of parents choosing where their kids go to school, oppose home-schooling, school vouchers or parental input into school curriculums. (Point 10)

During his campaign, John Kerry thundered, "You don't value families by kicking kids out of after school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break."

In another speech, Kerry told America, "You don't value families... if you deny veterans health care, or if you tell middle class families to wait for a tax cut, so that the wealthiest among us can get even more." (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie)

Hillary Clinton said in 1993, during her early co-presidency, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

The title of today's Omega Letter is a direct quote from Karl Marx, "Proletariats Have No Fatherland" -- reflecting Marx's worldview of a global socialist government in which the workers are 'citizens of the world'.

A major point of contention during the last two presidential elections has been over how much sovereignty the United States should surrender to the United Nations -- with John Kerry campaigning on a promise never to take the US to war without United Nations approval and support.

There is an organization called the 'Democratic Socialists of America' who have isolated seven principles that together form the DSA's 'Progressive Challenge'.

Those seven principles are, at a glance, a distillation of the ten points of Marx and Engel's 'Communist Manifesto' reworded for American consumption.

1. Dignified Work

2. Environmental Justice

3. Economic Redistribution

4. Democratic Participation

5. Community Empowerment

6. Global Non-Violence

7. Social Justice

At last count, there were some sixty-one members of the House and Senate, Democrats all, who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, under the banner of the 'Progressive Democratic Caucus -- (the largest single caucus in the House). Six of those DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee.

The DSA includes among its members; Rep. Bernie Sanders (D- Vt.) Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) Rep. Peter Defazio, (D-Or) Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-Ca), House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-Ca), Rep Henry Waxman (D-Ca), Rep Barney Frank (D-Ma)Rep Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY) Rep Charles Rangel, (D-NY), Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) and Rep James A McDermott (D-Wa), just to name a few.

Other powerful members of the DSA include AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, feminist Gloria Steinham, actor Ed Asner and libertarian socialist writer Noam Chomsky.

None of this is my opinion. This is documented fact.

Assessment:

Are you getting all this? For years, I've been accused of being a 'Republican flack' for the simple reason that I oppose all things emanating from the Democratic Party.

Just as it was possible to oppose the Communists without being a Nazi, it is possible to oppose the Democrats without being a Republican.

Former president Jimmy Carter, one of the most openly Marxist Democrats of our generation, traveled to England recently take another swipe at the United States, calling the Iraq War 'unnecessary and unjust' before opining to yet another foreign audience, "I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A."

According to Jimmy Carter, terrorism is mostly America's own fault. While he didn't go so far as to blame Gitmo for terrorism, he did say "it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter didn't mention that it also provided HIM with impetus and excuses to lash out at his own country and condemn AMERICA'S despicable acts.

Adding insult to injury, Carter made his comments while addressing the Baptist World Alliance centenary conference in Birmingham, England, making it appear that even Christians are opposed to America.

Then Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents in US history, a politician whose political party has lost both Houses of Congress AND the Oval Office, spoke 'on behalf of the American people', saying, "What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people. . . I'm embarrassed about it, I think it's wrong."

On the heels of claiming the administration doesn't represent America and declaring himself 'embarrassed' to be an American and declaring America 'wrong' went on in his comments to reassure the world that they were right -- America is a big, fat liar.

"I thought then and I think now that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false."

Naturally, al Jazeera ran its coverage of Jimmy Carter's comments under the headline, "Jimmy Carter: Guantanamo Is a Disgrace to America."

Carter didn't explain how locking away some of the evil and vile murderers on Planet Earth disgraced America. Neither did al-Jazeera. Just that former president Carter said that America is, in the view of a former US president, both 'disgraceful' and embarrassing.'

Carter's comments were echoed under similar headlines in the People's Daily (Communist China) the CBC (Canada) and pretty much every newspaper in the EU. (Marxists tend to stick together.)

The goal of Marxism, in Marx's own words, is to "dethrone God and destroy capitalism." The main planks in the leftist Democratic platform echo the same goals.

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" (Matthew 12:25)

We often address the question of where America is in Bible prophecy. Listening to the Marxist propaganda masquerading as 'progressive' US political agenda, it makes one wonder, "Where is America NOW?"


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aflcio; dsa; jimmycarter; marxism

1 posted on 08/01/2005 1:48:31 PM PDT by txgirl4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
1. Abolition of private property. Almost complete.
2. Progressive income tax.Done, but not as bas as in past.
3. Abolition of inheritance rights On track, with the "death tax"
4. Confiscation of property. Almost complete
5. A central banking system. Done.
6. Government control over communications and transportation. Not complete, but high regulations in TV and radio especially.
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture Not as much.
8. Government control of labor. On track, with regulations galore
9. Corporate farms and regional planning. Not as much
10. Free education for children in government-controlled schools. In effect, to a large extent.

It could be said that the U.S. follows about half of the Marxist platform.

2 posted on 08/01/2005 1:54:39 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
One of the greatest anti-nationalists of modern times was Karl Marx, the father of the political philosophy of Marxism. One of his more revealing, but less famous quotes was the following: "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

Liberalism hasn't changed much over the years.

3 posted on 08/01/2005 1:58:17 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
1. Abolition of private property. Almost complete.

Oh give me a break.

4 posted on 08/01/2005 1:59:42 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Hey aren't you supposed to ask permission before posting the Democrat's secret stretegy?


5 posted on 08/01/2005 2:00:06 PM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
Karl Marx taught that the world was divided into two powerful classes, the "'proletariat" (working class) and the "bourgeoisie" (wealthy ruling class).
Marxism sees the proletariat and bourgeoisie as directly waging an ongoing competition, in that capitalists exploit workers and workers try to resist exploitation. (This is the foundational principle behind modern US organized labor)

Marx underestimated both groups because he spent 99% of his time on his fat ass, reading and writing. He never did visit a single factory.

He thought that the bourgeoisie were too horrible to help the poor, which they werern't. The bourgeoisie was the source of whatever charity there was. Also, the great societal reforms came out of the Christian churches, ususally led by vicars -- who, more often than not, came from the bourgeoise class.

He thought that the proletariat was too stupid to learn or make their lives better. They DID manage to unionize and make their lives better.

Marx's babble about the thesis/anti-thesis with his own thesis of communinism being the ultimate and undisputable thesis was arrogant, ill-thought out and a masterful example of not having CLUE ONE about human nature.

6 posted on 08/01/2005 2:01:27 PM PDT by starfish923
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

What was Kelo?


7 posted on 08/01/2005 2:02:04 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Or, perhaps Aristotle had a better idea after all. Family first, and as a necessity to support the family, property. Then the families form the state to protect the property. Or, actually, all at the same time.


8 posted on 08/01/2005 2:02:30 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
Russell Kirk has a wonderful essay on the term Proletariat which we have heard all of our lives but little understand. I will excert the beginning:
From time to time, I am asked what I believe to be the greatest difficulty the American Republic confronts nowadays. I reply that our most puzzling and distressing social misfortune is the growth of a proletariat.

Let us define our terms. The words proletariat and proletarian come down to us from Roman times. In the Roman signification of the term, a proletarian is a man who gives nothing to the commonwealth but his progeny. Such a being pays no taxes, subsists at public expense, fulfills no civic duties, performs no work worth mentioning, and knows not the meaning of piety. As a mass, the collective proletarians, the proletariat, are formidable; they demand entitlements-principally, in antique times, bread and circuses; in our day, much larger entitlements, which are granted to them lest they turn collectively violent. To the state, I repeat, the proletarian contributes only his offspring-who in their turn, ordinarily, become proletarians. Idle, ignorant, and often criminal, the proletariat can ruin a great city-and a nation. What Arnold Toynbee calls "the internal proletariat" so dragged down the Roman civilization; the barbarian invaders, the "external proletariat," burst through the fragile shell of a culture already bled to death.

Karl Marx, that hard hater of the patrimony of modern civilization, called upon the modern proletariat to arise and shed blood on a grand scale. Triumphant in the Russian empire after the World War I, and in Eastern Europe and many other regions of the world not long after World War II, Marx's ideological disciples installed brutal proletarians in power, at least on the local level, where they were as merciless as they were stupid. The proletarian cannot build; but he is able to destroy.

The United States of America, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the early decades of the twentieth, was not afflicted by a proletariat on any large national scale -though Jefferson feared the coming of such a class when cities should grow. And Macaulay in 1857 foretold a "downward progress" in America at the end of which he said, "Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in the fifth."

Voting Proletariat. As Macaulay pointed out with some force, in the United States the proletariat would be possessed not merely of the power of intimidation through violence, but of the yet more effective power of the ballot box. "Your Huns and Vandals," he went on, "will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions."

Now in America today, whom do we specify when we talk of a proletariat, a rootless and discontented class that is a burden upon the commonwealth? It is necessary first to specify groups that we do not have in mind.

The proletariat is not identical with "the poor." Although most proletarians are poor, a man may be rich and yet a proletarian if he is nothing better than a vexation to the commonwealth and has the mind of a proletarian. Also, there are many people of very modest income who nevertheless are people of commendable character and good citizens. Incidentally, I am given to quoting an aside by Robert Frost when he was conversing with liberal friends: "Don't talk about the poor all the time!" The poor we have always with us, as Jesus of Nazareth instructs us.

The proletarian is not identical with "the workingman"-indeed, it is characteristic of the proletarian that he does not work voluntarily. I was reared almost literally in the Pere Marquette railway yards outside Detroit, my father a locomotive engineman and fireman; were not proletarians, nor were my schoolmates and their parents.

The proletarian is not identical with the "welfare recipient," even though the vast majority of proletarians are on the welfare rolls. For of course among the recipients of local, state, and federal relief and entitlements are many elderly, infirm, or otherwise distressed people who are not so unfortunate as to share the proletarian mentality and morality.

The proletarian population is not an urban population only. Increasingly, the proletarian condition of life spreads even into remote rural districts. In my backwoods or backwater Michigan village, a dismal rookery of decaying trailers, immobilized "mobile homes," hems in my tall archaic house; the sale of narcotics proceeds in our village's public park; and the rate of crimes, especially offenses against women, rises annually. The village's only church has been converted into an antique shop.

The proletariat, in short, is a mass of people who have lost-if ever they possessed-community, hope of betterment, moral convictions, habits of work, sense of personal responsibility, intellectual curiosity, membership in a healthy family, property, active participation in public concerns, religious associations, and awareness of ends or objectives in human existence. Most proletarians live, as dogs do, from day to day, unreflective. The lazzaroni of Naples, I suppose, for centuries have existed in such a proletarian condition; but the lazzaroni of American cities and countryside, proliferating in recent years, are more aggressive than their Neapolitan counterparts.


9 posted on 08/01/2005 2:03:41 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

> Proletariats Have No Fatherland

Nonsense in the title.

Marxism is, among other things, merely an extreme form
of classical human tribalism, and promotion and abuse
of group identity is an inseparable part of it.

Any purported anti-nationalism on the part of Marx was
either a ruse or massive self-delusion. The actual
results of Marxism in the 20th century demonstrate this.


10 posted on 08/01/2005 2:05:26 PM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
What was Kelo?

That's a long ways from being an abolition of property rights.

11 posted on 08/01/2005 2:06:52 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

Lots of this stuff sounds like Muslim ideology: the world is divided into spheres: the believers and the infidels, etc.


12 posted on 08/01/2005 2:09:31 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
Two stupid little things I think would help slow, and perhaps turn the tide:

First, create as many property owners as humanly possible in the country.

Second, require that the IRS to send out quarterly reports to show just how much money each person has paid into the federal system in the last quarter, because by the time tax time rolls around, most people are only concerned about how much they "get" completely missing how much they PAY. It would cost money...but would be worth it in the long run I think. At least until we can quit withholding and start monthly billing.

13 posted on 08/01/2005 2:13:13 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boundless
Absolutely. A tyranny, despite whatever ideological basis it may or may not have in equality, the dignity of the worker, etc; is fundamentally a sectarian entity where your ideological, genealogical, or geographical similarity to the man in power pays off in spades.

China has been Communist for a generation; but poor factory girls are asphyxiated and buried alive and all anyone can say about it in China is that they were "farmer's daughters, the lowest of the low". So much for the People's revolution, and the Farmer as the peasant proletariat.

The only difference between the Communists and the Nazi's were that the Communists were (ostensibly) internationalist socialists; while the Nazi's were nationalist socialists.
14 posted on 08/01/2005 2:14:55 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

Thanks for posting Kirk's definition of the proletariat.

I suspect you are aware that his definition, while much closer to the original meaning of the Roman term, is very different from that assigned by Marx and his follower. Kirk essentially equates the proletariat with what we often call the underclass. The people we generally see on the TV show Cops. People who will not work or learn. If they aren't criminals, it's because they're too lazy.

Marx used the term to mean the man who owned nothing but his labor, but was still willing and anxious to work for his living. The whole point of Marxism is that it predicted that more and more people of capitalist and middle-class backgrounds would be pushed down into the proletariat and would become part of that class whether they wanted to or not. Interestingly, that is almost the exact opposite of what has happened.

Marx, or perhaps Lenin, invented the term lumpen-proletariat to describe the underclass, and they had very little sympathy for them.


15 posted on 08/01/2005 2:24:58 PM PDT by Restorer (Liberalism: the auto-immune disease of societies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

"9. Corporate farms and regional planning. Not as much "

Wrong, just about there now... Read the UN's "PLAN 21."

Ever hear of ADM?


16 posted on 08/01/2005 2:28:00 PM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

"At least until we can quit withholding and start monthly billing."

Nope... I think it should be one WHOPPING bill at the end of each tax year.

You'll see some budget cutting then FRiend!
LOL


17 posted on 08/01/2005 2:31:22 PM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Who needs a Fatherland...when you have:

http://www.funlandusa.com/


18 posted on 08/01/2005 2:33:26 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
Here's what Karl Marx did: he gave totalitarians a great story line to enslave people. It sounds fair, it sounds like it should work. It sounds like we would all be so happy.

It's the perfect scam -- not for parting a fool from his money, but for parting a person from their freedom. And people wanted so badly to believe it was true, so badly that they assisted the monsters who would kill them. Even today, there are people who think if only the right environment was found, the right population, the right leaders, it might, just might work.

But it never does. Never will. The fruit is poison.

19 posted on 08/01/2005 2:39:18 PM PDT by GOPJ (A person who will lie for you, will lie against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Once again, a splash of the rational:

Oh give me a break.

20 posted on 08/01/2005 2:44:41 PM PDT by GOPJ (A person who will lie for you, will lie against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death

LOL. I think you're right. It works with property taxes when they are not included in your mortgage payments. Those (insert bad words here) goernment officials sure are good at hiding their activities.


21 posted on 08/01/2005 2:45:59 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

Duh...goernment = government.


22 posted on 08/01/2005 2:48:41 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

I think Adam Smith had it right. Position in class has nothing to do with happiness, yet people perceive it that way and will attempt to move up in class.


23 posted on 08/01/2005 2:48:57 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

The contradiction of the bourgeois is in holding power with limiting bloodshed as a principle, first for sensible moral reasons, but later on as a phobia of blood and money shed that contradicts Christ's work on the cross.

Thus while the Proletaria is gradualy calling for bloodshed for his or her own welfare, the bourgeois is gradualy bending over backward (or forward!) to avoid it and make it unPC. Attempts at pacifying the US proletariat through liberal bourgeois policies against the shedding of blood have been like AIDS cocktails: the disease spreads while subdued in impotence for now, the low potency making its spread in fact more acceptable, with Americans throughout society becoming more and more irresponsible at all levels..

Note also that while the bourgeois withhold bloodshed even more, the Proletariat seem to encourage it, with the MSM supporting implicitly terrorists during attacks on fundamental US structures and calls for lack of blood. Worse the bourgeois becomes stingy. RINOs pop left and right, being conservative only because it helps them enrich themselves, look more "appropriate" (to use Judge Greer's strange style obsessions) and "conserve" themselves from auto destruction and needless spending.

Worse, Christians believing in self sacrifice are loped together with Proletarians, getting even more burden of proof for their religion with the concerted attack of proletarians and the selfish disregard new conservatives have dor them (illegal immigrants are not called vigilante).

Thus the bourgeois has power but refuse to assuming in its bloodshed necessities, voting for zero tolerance policies against any hard thought or work on guns and what not. The bourgeois is indeed in a state of contradiction, brought in part by its proletarianization, yet also in part to distance itself from it.

Thus while the enemy now has a tendency to vote for bloodshed of innocent, the bourgeois votes against bloodshed volunteered for consolidating their own structures (hard work, self defense etc).


24 posted on 08/01/2005 2:49:23 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

If you add all state, local, federal taxes and include health insurance premiums which subsidize everyone that does not pay - and then include mandatory car insurance that is also a means of wealth redistribution, you have the govt controlling 60-70% of the economy.

Does not sound like capitalism to me.


25 posted on 08/01/2005 2:50:20 PM PDT by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

"Here's what Karl Marx did: he gave totalitarians a great story line to enslave people."

You got that right and his usefull idiots are still busy at work - the left won't be happy until they have ruined everything that made this country great.


26 posted on 08/01/2005 2:53:36 PM PDT by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush
Karl Marx taught that the world was divided into two powerful classes, the "'proletariat" (working class) and the "bourgeoisie" (wealthy ruling class).

A gross oversimplification. K.C. Burke has already dealt with the origins of that much-misunderstood term "proletariat," and the bourgeoisie weren't actually the "wealthy ruling class" but a beneficiary of that class that was the principal obstacle, in Marx's view, to the accession of the proletariat to power.

That does not invalidate the author's claims, but it does make it seem that he hasn't done the homework necessary to really understand the enemy.

The real reason that the Marx of the Manifesto was not the same as that of Capital is that in the intervening 20 years much that was grandly predicted in the former never came to pass. The proletariat - the real one in Germany - faded away. It did NOT experience increasing poverty, increasing illiteracy, increasing unemployment and "alientation." By the time that Marx died this "imminent" development had been put off first years, then decades, and now resides in some mythical future toward which all good little Marxists are supposed to work.

Losers.

27 posted on 08/01/2005 2:56:22 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

Good post!


28 posted on 08/01/2005 3:01:12 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

At the start of WWI all the good Marxist Socialist parties of Europe were caught up in nationalistic fervor.


29 posted on 08/01/2005 3:08:11 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starfish923
Marx was so full of s**t, but on top of that, his writing is SO BORING!!! I took a marxist economics class in college, and I actually got a pretty good grade in the class ( B+ ), but it was so full of crap. His whole concept of value added through work was the sort of stuff that only someone who's never created something could understand, along with dilectical materialism to confuse the hell out of anyone who questioned his theories.

Marx's theories require a totalitarian, utopian society, because it looks on man as being a hive creature, no different than a worker ant or bee. And if you don't want to participate in the utopia, you must be eliminated.

Mark

30 posted on 08/01/2005 3:08:40 PM PDT by MarkL (It was a shocking cock-up. The mice were furious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Always Right


Please define Fee Simple for me . If it is your property,why is it taxed ecery year.


31 posted on 08/01/2005 3:21:21 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

bttt


32 posted on 08/01/2005 3:24:05 PM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

I won't comment negatively on Marx. There are some about who might be upset so as to lose their composure.


33 posted on 08/01/2005 3:26:19 PM PDT by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
In Greek the word utopia actually means "nowhere."
THAT describes Marx and his mess.
Even as a young, willing-to-beliee 19-year-old, his entire thesis made no sense.
He WAS full of Scheiße.
34 posted on 08/01/2005 4:03:23 PM PDT by starfish923
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Modok

One thing that rarely comes up in discussions abou Marx is that he was such a complete loser, never worked, never did anything, except blame society for his supreme loserness.
He was relentless,hopeless depair.
His anti-God, anti-capitalist
Anti-society,anti-anything good
antitheticalness derived from
relentless misery.
His solution? Get a job?
No. Heh.
To fix the mess that he was,merely the entire society needed to be reformed.
Take away the winners , voila...no more losers. Like him.
*****
Anyone that starts on this, just start mentioning names.
Names you know. Famous is okay, but personal will wake em up.
Your Grandfather. Both Grandfathers. Your uncle who got his arm blowed off in Nam, and well he got a house on a lake and a nice boat...
My father for example, started with squat, ended up pretty good, anyone give anything to your family?
Invariably they will know an example of someone who got it done, someone they are proud to know. Someone they secretly fear is much better than them. Well they can do it too.

Use this to get on message that it is attitude and hard work. Attitude and hard work.

They will nod in agreement, it never fails.

Then buy em a beer. Ya know? Hope and faith and a positive attitude will just knock em out. They will get it by osmosis.
Can't fail.


35 posted on 08/01/2005 4:21:10 PM PDT by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pending

Read a little, when you have the opportunity, about Cordell Hull.


36 posted on 08/01/2005 6:47:11 PM PDT by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: txgirl4Bush

worth reading - thanks


37 posted on 08/01/2005 7:17:06 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
His whole concept of value added through work was the sort of stuff that only someone who's never created something could understand, along with dilectical materialism to confuse the hell out of anyone who questioned his theories.

Mostly because he wasn't actually a economist, but a philospher who thought of himself as an economist.

Ironically, he wasn't even the smarter of the duo (the other being Engels).

He stole some previous writings from others, through his own spin on it, daydreamed, and created what essentially is just class warfare rhetoric.

The chinese communists (Mao in particular) read his stuff, knew he was a crackpot, and deviated from it but still imposed harsh and brutal results and methods that were still insane.

Maos version of communism, while still tragic in its effects, did deviate from tradional marxism while still maintaining its communist identity.

38 posted on 08/07/2005 7:11:37 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson