The Fraud of Socialism and of Karl Marx

I've been reading the (*insert adjective here*) discussions going on here debating capitalism and socialism. I've chimed in a couple of times but I thought it may do me some good to read up on the foundations of Socialism just to make sure I'm not speaking from the orifice that is south of my mouth.

So I started at the one and only Karl Marx. This Marx guys was an intriguing fellow. Some quick facts about him:

• His dad was a wealthy lawyer (and born Jewish)
  
• He married and educated daughter of a Prussian baron
  
• He never actually "worked" other than writing articles for papers
  
• He had 7 kids
  
• He was broke all of his life until he inherited houses and money from dying family members
  
• He relied on the hand outs of friends and family to afford a middle class lifestyle
  
• He had an illegitimate son by his house keeper... he had a house keeper?
  
• In college, he all but flunked out, after he joined the "Trier Tavern Club" drinking society.
  
• His dad forced him to switch schools and majors (from philosophy to law) because you can't earn money in philosophy
  
• It didn't matter, he joined the Young Hegelins and continued to study philosophy and history
  
• His doctorate was awarded by University of Jenn, not the University of Berlin - because he knew the prestigious University of Berlin would laugh him out of the school.
  
• When he moved to London, he tired out politics, won the seat of General Council of the First International, but then he rode the party into the ground.
  
• He was completely wrong about his forecast of Russia and their evolution to socialism through farming communes - he just died before he saw that.
  

Karl Marx (Wikipedia)

So, the founder of socialism was born into a upper-middle class family, married nobility, completely wasted his time and dad's money in school, learned no career skills, tried unsuccessfully to live materialistically, then inherited a bunch of money, became a member of every radical revolutionary movement he could find, hired house workers and then made babies with them.....

Please explain to me why ANYONE would listen the garbage this guy told you? His life was a complete exercise in sucking off the system and failed theory and application. The only time he actually achieved the lifestyle he'd be striving for was when WEALTHY family members let him inherit their property (clearly AGAINST the precepts of communism btw).

How does Marx, who never worked a day in his life, become the father of the "worker's party"?

Socialism is the concept that the producers own the means of production. The problem is that there will always continue to be increases separation of the workers from the means of production, and at some point workers will have to be employed by those who do own the means of production.

Capitalism cannot evolve into Socialism because when the workers become too separated from the means of production, proletariatization occurs which leads us back to Capitalism.

Anyway...

All this is to say that when you look at the roots of the socialism model, and it's intent to develop the communist system - their based in un-falsifiable theory created by professional students that have never applied their own theory.

It should tell you something when the only people advocating something fail to actually live under it's tenants.

Reminds me of when I was a kid and it was Thursday night "left over casserole" dinners. I'd ask my mom "What's in this" and she'd reply "Just eat it first, I promise it's good". I'd then ask her if she was having any....

She mysteriously always ate salads on Thursday nights...

I hope you get the point.

Socialism predated Marx. This is why his approach is called Marxism,which is only branch of Socialism. And i am not sure, but i think that Communism is a branch of Marxism.
So i think that arguing about Socialism while you speak about Marx is not correct.
By the way - what you said about Marx is true, and if you look into Communist leaders world wide (Lenin, Stalin, Mao,senior Kim ) - they were not people who worked in factories or fields.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Socialism predated Marx. This is why his approach is called Marxism,which is only branch of Socialism. And i am not sure, but i think that Communism is a branch of Marxism.
So i think that arguing about Socialism while you speak about Marx is not correct.
By the way - what you said about Marx is true, and if you look into Communist leaders world wide (Lenin, Stalin, Mao,senior Kim ) - they were not people who worked in factories or fields.

I agree with you but Marxisim is essentially following Marx's theories about the Socialistic model, and he is commonly accepted as the father of modern socialism I think...

You know what's funny though, I am thinking about creating another thread linked to this, pointing out the common thread of communist leaders that champion this system that often is administered by people who've never actually 'worked' AND seem to enjoy all the benefits of the worker's paradise while the workers themselves seem to just fall deeper into the suck.

Then for the real twist - I watch Obama and I see the same pattern. He never worked, champions the socialistic model from a idealistic point of view, now wants to implement this system that will conveniently never touch his family...

All the while he tells Americans they'll need to sacrifice to help the country recover... but he's off on ANOTHER vacation...

Marx promised heaven & delivered hell.

Isn't if funny how all the useful idiots defending socialism have never lived in Stalins Russia, or Mao's China, yet the people who escaped those totalitarian regimes denounce them.

reply to post by zzombie


You are confusing Socialism and Communism.


I know quite a few people in Europe who love the way their government works.

And I've also known russians who say they loved communism in Old Russia.

Don't know anyone from China well enough to talk to them about communism. Although I do know quite a few of Chinese immigrants in my area. So perhaps that speaks to something.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Miraj]

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by zzombie

 

You are confusing Socialism and Communism.


I know quite a few people in Europe who love the way their government works.

And I've also known russians who say they loved communism in Old Russia.

Don't know anyone from China well enough to talk to them about communism. Although I do know quite a few of Chinese immigrants in my area. So perhaps that speaks to something.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Miraj]

Socialism is an economic structure meant to be governed through communism. The two really are related and there are hybrid versions of a socialism-capitalism economic model.

However, there are no purely socialistic governments in Europe - else they'd be Communists. Pure capitalism is feudalism, and pure socialism is communism.

And I'm curious - the Russian you know who liked it... was he/she a party member in good standing (i.e. in control) or just one of the millions of workers in paradise?

Originally posted by gncnew
I've been reading the (*insert adjective here*) discussions going on here debating capitalism and socialism. I've chimed in a couple of times but I thought it may do me some good to read up on the foundations of Socialism just to make sure I'm not speaking from the orifice that is south of my mouth.

So I started at the one and only Karl Marx. This Marx guys was an intriguing fellow. Some quick facts about him:

Oh, wonderful. Another thread based on logical fallacies.

Ad hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

.....

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

A corollary: Tu quoque

Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.

.....

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Can we stop the ridiculous "Darwin was wrong because he was a jerk" and "Marx was wrong because he was stupid" rubbish?

Either make some reasoned arguments WITHOUT resorting to attacking the person making the original argument, or don't click that "New Thread" button. But then, that would require you to make some effort beyond "Hey, I want some flags and stars from people who don't do much thinking, so I'll just regurgitate some personal attacks."

I hope you get the point.

I hope you get a copy of "Debate for Dummies."

Originally posted by gncnew

His dad was a wealthy lawyer (and born Jewish)

How does being Jewish have to do with anything?

He married and educated daughter of a Prussian baron

Smart people tend to like an intelligent conversation, with their spouse in particular. I know I do.

He never actually "worked" other than writing articles for papers

Since when journalism is not a profession?

He had 7 kids

Typical of that time!

He was broke all of his life until he inherited houses and money from dying family members

So he refused to climb the corporate ladder?

He relied on the hand outs of friends and family to afford a middle class lifestyle

Well, he's lucky. I can't rely on anyone, but I wish I could.

He had an illegitimate son by his house keeper... he had a house keeper?

That's a bit posh but lots of I people I know have somebody to clean their houses.

In college, he all but flunked out, after he joined the "Trier Tavern Club" drinking society.

Did Bill Gates ever graduate?

His dad forced him to switch schools and majors (from philosophy to law) because you can't earn money in philosophy

A typical person rarely becomes a rock star regardless of their talent and love for music, but I applaud those who have the guts to follow their passion.

It didn't matter, he joined the Young Hegelins and continued to study philosophy and history

Ditto.

His doctorate was awarded by University of Jenn, not the University of Berlin - because he knew the prestigious University of Berlin would laugh him out of the school.

Snobs!

When he moved to London, he tired out politics, won the seat of General Council of the First International, but then he rode the party into the ground.

Happens. Managing a party in one nation can be hard (just ask Michael Steele), having an international party to manage must be a b!tch.

So, the founder of socialism was born into a upper-middle class family, married nobility, completely wasted his time and dad's money in school, learned no career skills, tried unsuccessfully to live materialistically, then inherited a bunch of money, became a member of every radical revolutionary movement he could find, hired house workers and then made babies with them.....

The fact that you took your time to try to debunk him already speaks volumes. You will anguish in anonymity for the rest of your life, whereas that Marx dude made history books.


[edit on 16-8-2010 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Oh wait... you wanted debate. See all I did was point out that a man who championed a system failed utterly to try and live by it.


I wasn't debating one system v/s the other, I was simply pointing out some ridiculousness that I found when researching said subject - and hence the fraud I opined it to be.

But thanks for the insanely off-topic reply giving everyone a very insightful look at how words can come from Latin.

Here's another word for you to look up: Obtuse.

Originally posted by gncnew
reply to post by mothershipzeta

 

Oh wait... you wanted debate. See all I did was point out that a man who championed a system failed utterly to try and live by it.

It's like accusing Von Braun that he never actually flew to the Moon. Or blame Einstein that he didn't spend much time in the lab doing measurements.

reply to post by gncnew

The trouble with all political systems is that excrement floats and thereby you aquire your ruling class. Your LEADER's, the Corporate CEO's. This is where the sociopaths gravitate to and steal anything not nailed down. I don't belive that the whoredom that is Capitalism is any better. A real Democracy, where everyone is equal. I do not know how we could accomplish this without a Tribal paradigm. We could all vote via computer on issues as long as we have safeguards. BUT history teaches us that whatever political system we utilize, there will be those that seek to usurp the will of the people. Our current system flagrantly usurps the will of the common people in favor of Multinational Corporations. They steal our rights under the guise of terrorism. Our rights will all be taken away long before terrorists run out of bombs. I am sick of self serving leaders. I do not see how we can rectify the current system without complete peaceful, non-violent deconstruction. Do you?

reply to post by gncnew


Instead of considering those at the extreme, why not instead look at the social pioneer Robert Owen & the work he did in the villages of New Lanark (Scotland) and New Harmony (Indiana USA). He's one of the founders of socialism too.

But Owen wasn't like Marx, he didn't just write books and theorise. Owen put his own theory into practice. His company provided schools and an education for the children of his employees ... and for orphans too. Healthcare for the bad times which you paid for from your wages in the good times. The provision of good quality foodstuffs for his workers at little more than cost, the provision of decent houses for his workers too.

That's socialism in action. Looking after your own. The reward ? A more dedicated, better educated and healthier workforce.

Why not consider Owen instead of Marx ?

You probably should have left "Socialism" out of the title, to avoid the ad hominem accusation.

I think Marx's personal failings are quite interesting and worth making a thread on, especially for one who is already familiar to the point of boredom with the intellectual bankruptcy of his theories.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I think Marx's personal failings are quite interesting and worth making a thread on, especially for one who is already familiar to the point of boredom with the intellectual bankruptcy of his theories.

Not all of them, though. He's about as interesting as a philosopher as many others, and his observations of how the labor and goods markets are related are all mostly valid. And of course there is a whole bunch of junk.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I was going to quote you - but you're post is too long. Bottom line is you're drawing inconsistant parallells.

I'm not trying to debunk the man, actually i was just reading up about him and was kind of chuckling to myself as I read this guy's bio.

Don't you find it amazing that the father of a socio-economic system that is supposed to bring fairness to the working class was never a member of it?

And for your information - Journalism is a profession, op-eds are not journalism. He didn't report news, he wrote opinions about the world as he saw it.

I guess what I see there are an amazing amount of inconsistencies for what he championed.

I've leared in my life to look at one's actions rather than words. That will tell you far more about what they really believe.

And yep, he's more famous than I am - he's also much more infamous than I....

Originally posted by Klaatumagnum
reply to post by gncnew

 

The trouble with all political systems is that excrement floats and thereby you aquire your ruling class. Your LEADER's, the Corporate CEO's. This is where the sociopaths gravitate to and steal anything not nailed down. I don't belive that the whoredom that is Capitalism is any better. A real Democracy, where everyone is equal. I do not know how we could accomplish this without a Tribal paradigm. We could all vote via computer on issues as long as we have safeguards. BUT history teaches us that whatever political system we utilize, there will be those that seek to usurp the will of the people. Our current system flagrantly usurps the will of the common people in favor of Multinational Corporations. They steal our rights under the guise of terrorism. Our rights will all be taken away long before terrorists run out of bombs. I am sick of self serving leaders. I do not see how we can rectify the current system without complete peaceful, non-violent deconstruction. Do you?

Well said - but I'm not sure that any kind of deconstruction of this system would result in a BETTER system.

When Communist Russia fell, they didn't "evolve" into more socialism. I just can't think of anything working better in today's world of globalism than a hybrid socialism (i.e. regulated) capitalism.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by gncnew

 

Instead of considering those at the extreme, why not instead look at the social pioneer Robert Owen & the work he did in the villages of New Lanark (Scotland) and New Harmony (Indiana USA). He's one of the founders of socialism too.

But Owen wasn't like Marx, he didn't just write books and theorise. Owen put his own theory into practice. His company provided schools and an education for the children of his employees ... and for orphans too. Healthcare for the bad times which you paid for from your wages in the good times. The provision of good quality foodstuffs for his workers at little more than cost, the provision of decent houses for his workers too.

That's socialism in action. Looking after your own. The reward ? A more dedicated, better educated and healthier workforce.

Why not consider Owen instead of Marx ?

I'll read about him. Just so you know - I was just looking more into the foundations of the modern socialistic theory and started with Marx.

One note - without doing ANY research: I noted you said Owen had his company provide schools and education for his employees.

But if he owned the company and made the decision... is that not going against socialism. The workers work for him because they are separated from the means of production. Thus he employs capitalism to achieve his goal of socialism...

Twisted

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Not all of them, though. He's about as interesting as a philosopher as many others, and his observations of how the labor and goods markets are related are all mostly valid. And of course there is a whole bunch of junk.

That is a good point; I ought to give the guy a break. But LToV, on which Marxist political ideology is based, is utter nonsense.

reply to post by gncnew


You're right. Owen doesn't sit comfortably in the left/right "thang". That's what makes him so interesting ... because he's claimed by both the left and the right. His socialist credentials are almost perfect, better education, better healthcare etc etc ... but hey he's a caring conservative too, using profit to improve the lot of his employees and by doing so to improve profit still further and thus investment etc etc.

Owen's a much underrated gem of a man, he's the one who laid the foundations for much of the European social democracy we see today, way more influential than Marx ... because Owen's ideas we see in practice around us each and every day.

I know your thread is more about theory and that's maybe what you'd prefer ... if so I'll bid you a fond adieu. But I think theory without practice is a pile of academic piffle, just so you know

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


I think I may try to figure out a better way to actually discuss the practice, but to my knowledge there is no successful example of the application of Socialism. There are pieces of the theory that are applied all the time, but not really the whole enchilada (so to speak).

I think the same applies with Capitalism. Left alone - it really doesn't work for a large society (of course you happen to be one of the lucky few).

So it's hard to really debate the practice of the two because when either is actually given time to manifest into maturity - calamity ensues.