New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Politics: The Study of Force?

OK. Marx married into a Prussian royal family and his agitating resulted in malcontents being removed from society and in the dissolution of the Prussian parliament.
I'm not clear on how that implies any questionable motives regarding Marx's view of history or his criticism of capitalism?
 
You don't think that calls his motives into question considering what was happening at that time? Why not?
What time period are you referring to?

"Hegelianism and early activism: 1836–1843[edit]

"Spending summer and autumn 1836 in Trier, Marx became more serious about his studies and his life. He became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, an educated baroness of the Prussian ruling class who had known Marx since childhood.

"Having broken off her engagement with a young aristocrat to be with Marx, their relationship was socially controversial due to the differences between their religious and class origins, but Marx befriended her father, a liberal aristocrat, Ludwig von Westphalen, and later dedicated his doctoral thesis to him.[35]

"Seven years after their engagement, on 19 June 1843, Marx married Jenny in a Protestant church in Kreuznach."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Hegelianism_and_early_activism:_1836.E2.80.931843
 
Marx was predicting the future based upon his reading of history.

"In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom for that purpose, to work for the capitalists in exchange of wages.

"The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world.

"In the capitalist-controlled parliament, laws are made to protect wealth.

"But according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings—inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall.

"The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the 'grave digger' of capitalism.

"The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces.

"The rest is surplus value—the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the 'unpaid labour of the working class.'

"The capitalists are forced by technological advances and partially by competition to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates a more direct conflict between these classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class.

"The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#The_stages_of_history
I was wrong, you weren't guessing based upon the opinion of one man, you were guessing based upon the opinions of two men.

Marx didn't study all economies throughout history, he briefly studied England's economy and that's why I think he was wrong to talk about bureaucracy because at that time the size of England's government probably had more to do with its mercantile period than with capitalism.

Thank you for the Wikipedia link but I don't need it, I went to college.
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
I was wrong, you weren't guessing based upon the opinion of one man, you were guessing based upon the opinions of two men.

Marx didn't study all economies throughout history, he briefly studied England's economy and that's why I think he was wrong to talk about bureaucracy because at that time the size of England's government probably had more to do with its mercantile period than with capitalism.

Thank you for the Wikipedia link but I don't need it, I went to college.
Agreed on Marx. While he made some interesting observations of Victorian England and Colonial Europe, the fact remains he died in 1883, with his most influential work about the time of the American Civil War. Things have changed in many ways over the past two centuries.

BTW, I have no problem with Wiki. It's a great starting point, but only as good as it's references.
 
Marx didn't study all economies throughout history, he briefly studied England's economy and that's why I think he was wrong to talk about bureaucracy because at that time the size of England's government probably had more to do with its mercantile period than with capitalism.
Which college gave you this insight^^^?
Got a link?
Wiki's fine with me:D
 
How do you know Socialism is an etched in stone historical phase when its existence relies upon the collapse of capitalism? capitalism is relatively new so what history are you reading?
If You've Heard of Someone, Don't Listen to Him

Whatever their authoritarian ideology, histwhorians are the scribes of the ruling class, so they are hiding something. Toynbee's picture of a society's phases imitating a person's youth, maturity, and senility easily fools people into thinking rise, decline, and fall is a natural process.

But hereditary power, which is never condemned, is the unmentioned cancer that rots and spreads. So instead of comparing it to biology, it is more accurate to apply it to another system and understand what would happen. Suppose pro athletes had the right to appoint their sons to their positions? It wouldn't take long before the sports would be unwatchable and the aristocratic leagues would have to fold.
 
If You've Heard of Someone, Don't Listen to Him

Whatever their authoritarian ideology, histwhorians are the scribes of the ruling class, so they are hiding something. Toynbee's picture of a society's phases imitating a person's youth, maturity, and senility easily fools people into thinking rise, decline, and fall is a natural process.

But hereditary power, which is never condemned, is the unmentioned cancer that rots and spreads. So instead of comparing it to biology, it is more accurate to apply it to another system and understand what would happen. Suppose pro athletes had the right to appoint their sons to their positions? It wouldn't take long before the sports would be unwatchable and the aristocratic leagues would have to fold.
I already mentioned hereditary power although not by those exact words. Marx wasn't an idiot, quite the opposite actually, and his agitation helped those he was claiming he wanted to harm.
 
I already mentioned hereditary power although not by those exact words. Marx wasn't an idiot, quite the opposite actually, and his agitation helped those he was claiming he wanted to harm.
Things Are Not As They Seem

Marxists are HeirHeads assigned to infiltrate and sabotage or rule over democratic movements. Their ideology was cooked up at the university, an obsolete aristocratic institution designed for students living off a fatcat's fat allowance.
 
Top