A young political activist finds it "disgusting" that he should have
to pay £4 (≈ $6) to visit the popular tourist attraction in London's Highgate Cemetery, the grave of Karl Marx. But Highgate Cemetery is private property, it's not making money burying new bodies (it's full), and the place had gone into decline. It was "a favorite hangout of occultists" and there was vandalism, "including two attempts to blow.. up" the giant bronze head of Marx that tops his tomb.
Not even all Marxists are against the fee. That includes Alex Gordon, chair of the trustees of the Marx Memorial Library & Workers’ School, a charity that helps look after the grave.
“Marx believed that labor should be rewarded, he didn’t believe that you could achieve a classless society simply by refusing to pay for things,” he said. “He wasn’t a hippie, let’s put it like that.”
Posts
99 comments:
He did kinda look like a hippie, though.
Anyway, it's true that you don't achieve a classless society simply by refusing to pay for things. You achieve it by taking things away. Actually, that doesn't work either, but it makes Marxists feel better.
Marx actually was a bit of a hippy and lived off on Engels financially supporting him. Karl couldn't do shit for himself.
That's a pretty fancy monument you have there, Mr. Marx. Does everyone get one like that?
My extensive moral preening yearns to be free!
"That's a pretty fancy monument you have there, Mr. Marx. Does everyone get one like that?"
Picture the earth with a monument like that for everyone who has ever died. Spooky!
The dead out-number the living 15 to 1.
Fortunately, the living make up for that numerical disadvantage with our superior agility.
http://www.livescience.com/18336-human-population-dead-living-infographic.html
Fairly certain seeing the monument will be free under the Sanders administration. It's in his platform under foreign aid. Hillary soon to follow. R's will investigate.
I admit I like the idea of enterprising private business owners making money off of Marx. If there was more price gouging, even better.
Fun.
The base of the monument looks like people have been pissing on it.
“He wasn’t a hippie, let’s put it like that."
No, he was an abusive, bullying malignant narcissist with disgusting personal habits who never worked a day in his life.
“There are no depths of irony, or bad taste, to which capitalists won’t sink if they think they can make money out of it.”
This explains rap music, and Britney Spears, but not much else.
Some monuments are more equal than others.
Nobody has to pay to see Lenin's embalmed corpse in Moscow.
Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article.
[quote]
The Mausoleum is open Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday from 10:00 to 13:00, except holidays .... Visitors still wait in lines to see Lenin's body although they are not as long as they once were. Entrance is free of charge. Before visitors enter the mausoleum, armed police or military guards search them. Visitors are required to show respect while in the tomb: photography and videotaping inside the mausoleum are forbidden, as are talking, smoking, keeping hands in pockets, or wearing hats (unless female).
Since 1991, there has been some discussion about removing the Kremlin Wall Necropolis and burying Lenin's body. President Boris Yeltsin, with the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, intended to close the tomb and bury Lenin next to his mother, Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova, at the Volkov Cemetery in St. Petersburg. His successor, Vladimir Putin, opposed this, pointing out that a reburial of Lenin would imply that generations of citizens had observed false values during 70 years of Soviet rule.
In January 2011, the United Russia party created a website where visitors could vote whether Lenin's body should be buried, and 50.79% percent of the voters were against his burial.
[unquote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Mausoleum
The dude abides.
"Marx actually was a bit of a hippy and lived off on Engels financially supporting him. Karl couldn't do shit for himself.
Much like our modern political class.
Go Bernie - atta girl Ann.
Marx also believed that everything he wanted should be paid for by his Tonto, Engels. Engels was a wealthy man and by and large complied.
As I read the article, they charge for admission to the cemetery, not just the Marx grave. Without the fee, there would be no income to maintain the cemetery, which is a interesting historical site.
Would it please the Marxists if the government took over the maintenance of cemetery? It would, because then they would think it was free.
Engels was a trust fund baby.
Wikipedia's claim that his work, The Condition of the Working Class in England, was "...based on personal observations and research in Manchester," is contradicted by historian Paul Johnson, who claims that Engels never did any original research on anything he wrote about; and that he pioneered the technique favored by Marxian scholars of starting with the conclusion and hammering at the facts until they fit it.
"Picture the earth with a monument like that for everyone who has ever died. Spooky!"
Exactly. Orthodox Marxism is ecologically disastrous. Red and green don't mix.
because then they would think it was free
Reduced liability through large-scale (e.g. national) redistributive change or simulated wealth through financial leverage (e.g. debt). Also, pro-choice/abortion to improve "quality" of life and planning/cannibalism to extend life.
That said, intrinsic value has implications, but it must be reconciled with other imperatives. And without principles, there is corruption (e.g. exclusion, congruences, diversity, debasement, devaluation, etc.).
Propery rights leads to better stewardship? Wow, that is new concept.
"There are no depths of irony, or bad taste, to which capitalists won’t sink"
Ahh, the butthurt is strong in this one.
I think it's hilarious. I'd charge admission even if it wasn't needed.
"Highgate Cemetery is private property, it's not making money burying new bodies (it's full)"
Sounds like bad financial management, as the amount charged for burial should be sufficient to fund an endowment that throws off enough income to pay for perpetual care? After all, reaching capacity is a predictable outcome.
Unless they use a model that permits only something like 99-year leases on gravesites which, with requirements for biodegradable coffins, would permit re-use.
Stupidity is mass produced and always in abundance. For all that, it's not cheap and, in fact, rather expensive.......I know how they could make big bucks off this graveyard. Dig up the graves of all those nobodies and proles who are buried with Marx. Then charge premium prices for burial plots in that graveyard. I'm sure that there are plenty of rich Marxists who would pay through the nose for the privilege of being buried in the presence of the master.
A young political activist finds it "disgusting" that he should have to pay £4 (≈ $6) to visit the popular tourist attraction in London's Highgate Cemetery, the grave of Karl Marx
Then don't pay it.
What would be disgusting is compelling everyone in the UK to pay a couple shillings each year to maintain the upkeep of a crypt and to employ someone to oversee it.
And I don't see why they can't bury more people there. Isn't that what's done at Pere Lachaise in Paris?
Bryson, Bill (2010-10-05). At Home: A Short History of Private Life (p. 2). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition:
“Have you ever noticed,” Brian asked as we stepped into the churchyard, “how country churches nearly always seem to be sinking into the ground?” He pointed out how this one stood in a slight depression, like a weight placed on a cushion. The church foundations were about three feet below the churchyard around it. “Do you know why that is?”
I allowed, as I often do when following Brian around, that I had no idea.
“Well, it isn’t because the church is sinking,” Brian said, smiling. “It’s because the churchyard has risen. How many people do you suppose are buried here?” I glanced appraisingly at the gravestones and said, “I don’t know. Eighty? A hundred?”
“I think that’s probably a bit of an underestimate,” Brian replied with an air of kindly equanimity. “Think about it. A country parish like this has an average of 250 people in it, which translates into roughly a thousand adult deaths per century, plus a few thousand more poor souls that didn’t make it to maturity. Multiply that by the number of centuries that the church has been there and you can see that what you have here is not eighty or a hundred burials, but probably something more on the order of, say, twenty thousand.” This was, bear in mind, just steps from my front door. “Twenty thousand?” I said.
He nodded matter-of-factly. “That’s a lot of mass, needless to say. It’s why the ground has risen three feet.”
For an extra $6, you can piss on Marx grave
"intrinsic value has implications"
Old-fashioned notion. Not really compatible with the Marxian theory of value.
If the protesters could stop bitching for a moment, they'd see that the cemetery fee raises interesting questions in Marxian theory. How are use and exchange value being produced here? What surplus value, if any, is being created, and how is it appropriated? Are we fetishizing market exchange by focusing on the fee as such, or is this a case where market dynamics in fact separate from production?
"No, he was an abusive, bullying malignant narcissist with disgusting personal habits who never worked a day in his life."
This is true of many writers and philosophers. It has no bearing on whether their work is significant or not.
(What, I am truly curious, were Marx's "disgusting personal habits?")
"This explains rap music, and Britney Spears, but not much else."
Oh, it explains a lot! (Dean Martin Roasts, pet rocks, David Spade and Adam Sandler movies, etc., etc.)
“He wasn’t a hippie, let’s put it like that."
No, he was an abusive, bullying malignant narcissist with disgusting personal habits who never worked a day in his life.
So are most hippies.....
It has no bearing on whether their work is significant or not.
I thought you said you never read Das Kapital Comrade Cookie.
Marxism is a bust.
if he thinks that it just shows that Marxism is in fact a ridiculous idea.
"I thought you said you never read Das Kapital Comrade Cookie."
I haven't. Why would you assume otherwise based on my comment?
You seemed to be implying that Marx's work was significant, which of course you would never do without having read it.
"There are no depths of irony, or bad taste, to which capitalists won’t sink if they think they can make money out of it."
That this statement is somehow attached to Marx is a testament to the blazing success of public education.
The only thing that monument is missing is a giant wall with the names of the 100+ million people that died because of this mans work.
I would like to further refine the idea I presented at 9:19. It's a matter of writ that the worker's paradise will first occur at Marx's grave and spread in concentric circles from that holy ground. As noted earlier, this is sufficient reason to charge the many wealthy Marxists a premium price for burial in the company of their savior. But that's no reason not to spread the wealth of Marx's corpse around. What I visualize is dividing the bones into two sections. In one section, you can keep bones under the bust, and people can go there to pay their respects. In another section, a discreet section away from the bust, you can erect a pissoir where those so inclined can also pay their respects. Thus everyone can be happy, and the workers at the cemetery, who are given an equable share of the profits, can indeed be the first to experience the worker's paradise as it was foretold in DA's Kapital.......I think Obama would like to throw Marx under the bust..
Das Kapital.
Oh boy. I have tried to plow through it several times over the last (cough) decades. Never made any real headway. But I still have my copy, shelved (for reasons of sheer bulk) next to a casebook on contract law. Which, in comparison, is a miracle of clarity. Speaking of irony...
I love that, for Progressives, Marx is basically Jesus....except Jesus didn't want you to give him all of your stuff.
The problem with Marxism is two-fold: minority ruling elite and involuntary participation. The philosophy is a quasi-religion combined with monopoly forming elements of left-wing ideology. The reduction of competing interests enabled narcissistic individuals to run amuck.
"Das Kapital.
Oh boy. I have tried to plow through it"
There's always David Harvey on YouTube. A lecture on every chapter! Don't think he got to Volume 3.
Amazing stuff in its way. Perhaps best left to true believers, though.
"You seemed to be implying that Marx's work was significant, which of course you would never do without having read it."
You're inferring; I wasn't implying anything. I certainly don't assume--just because we have been propagandized to see Marx as a boogey-man--that his work is without merit.(It is undeniably significant--meritorious or not--given the influence it has had on the world.)
My point--which was clear as a pre-industrial era sky--was that personal insults about a writer or philosopher's character, personal habits, etc., do not have any bearing on the work he or she produces. Many great artists and writers have had objectionable character and led unseemly lives. This does not impeach their work, but simply makes the creations of humankind that much more mysterious, in that they are often greater than or contrary to the nature of they who produced them.
"The problem with Marxism is two-fold: minority ruling elite and involuntary participation. The philosophy is a quasi-religion combined with monopoly forming elements of left-wing ideology. The reduction of competing interests enabled narcissistic individuals to run amuck."
In this description, we have(with the change of but one word--"right-wing" for "left-wing")--a succinct critique of capitalism, which certainly, in America, at least, has achieved the status of a secular religion. This includes the "monopoly forming elements, the "reduction of competing interests," and "narcissistic individuals (running) amuck."
To be even more to the point: if one wishes to impeach Marx (or anyone whose ideas one deplores), then successfully and thoroughly critique the ideas.
To be even more to the point: if one wishes to impeach Marx (or anyone whose ideas one deplores), then successfully and thoroughly critique the ideas.
How about we look at results?
Those following the ideas of Adam Smith have produced a civilization with the highest standard of living for the most number of people in history. It has produced never before seen levels of personal freedom and fulfillment.
Those following the ideas of Karl Marx have produced misery, and poverty. It has produced never before seen levels of oppression and death.
I'll choose capitalism over communism every time.
"The problem with Marxism is two-fold: minority ruling elite and involuntary participation. The philosophy is a quasi-religion combined with monopoly forming elements of left-wing ideology. The reduction of competing interests enabled narcissistic individuals to run amuck."
In this description, we have(with the change of but one word--"right-wing" for "left-wing")--a succinct critique of capitalism, which certainly, in America, at least, has achieved the status of a secular religion. This includes the "monopoly forming elements, the "reduction of competing interests," and "narcissistic individuals (running) amuck".
The key difference you have so conveniently overlooked is "involuntary participation". In communist societies they have to have build walls to keep people in. In Capitalist societies, we have to build walls to keep people out. That says all that needs to be said.
Marx accepted the need for a ruling class, and he wanted that job.
What Marx wanted was the bourgeoisie of shopkeepers and professionals like lawyers to be killed off so no one was in a position to make money from real workers except real working class.
Obama is Marx.
Gahrie,
Looking at the "results" of Marx's critique of capitalism does not serve as an argument against his ideas. At best, it serves as an argument against how his ideas have been taken by others and used (or mis-used) according to their own misinterpretations or particular agendas. If one reads his ideas, one might see how much--or how little--of his analysis of Capitalism and prescription for a better economic arrangement among people has actually been tried as he envisioned.
We can look at the actions of many in the name of Christ and Christianity over centuries to see how drastically a set of teachings can be perverted and put to use justifying the most ghastly atrocities of fanatics and power-mongers. Should we consider the behavior of the Catholic Church over the centuries to be an adequate argument against the philosophy of Christ?
Robert Cook said...We can look at the actions of many in the name of Christ and Christianity over centuries to see how drastically a set of teachings can be perverted and put to use justifying the most ghastly atrocities of fanatics and power-mongers. Should we consider the behavior of the Catholic Church over the centuries to be an adequate argument against the philosophy of Christ?
Should we? The Left does...so that kind of answers itself, doesn't it? I mean, "but don't forget about the Crusades" and what not--that's not exactly a rare POV among prominent Leftists.
At any rate Marx's understanding of economics was in many ways flawed, notably w/r/t the value/valuation of labor--flawed in a way common for his time, but nonetheless flawed--so it won't do to simply say "his ideas in their pure form were solid, it's only the implementation that has messed things up." I have a copy of Das Kapital on my bookshelf at home. Marx wasn't an idiot and if you want to argue he wasn't himself evil that's fine, but he was wrong about some pretty fundamental things (human nature, for instance) and it's ridiculous to wholly discount the experiences of tens of millions of people who suffered under regimes that believed Marx was right.
An engineer to Robert Cook:
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."
As we have seen, over and over.
Should we consider the behavior of the Catholic Church over the centuries to be an adequate argument against the philosophy of Christ?
Millions, included your Bolshevik buddies, have.
Reality and history have thoroughly "critiqued" Marx's ideas.
At best, it serves as an argument against how his ideas have been taken by others and used (or mis-used) according to their own misinterpretations or particular agendas.
Thanks for keeping the flame alive Cookie. Always good for a laugh you are. Communism has never been tried.... LO FUCKING L.
"An engineer to Robert Cook:
'In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.'
"As we have seen, over and over."
Which simply underlines my point.
Looking at the "results" of Marx's critique of capitalism does not serve as an argument against his ideas. At best, it serves as an argument against how his ideas have been taken by others and used (or mis-used) according to their own misinterpretations or particular agendas. If one reads his ideas, one might see how much--or how little--of his analysis of Capitalism and prescription for a better economic arrangement among people has actually been tried as he envisioned.
I'm more than willing to cut Mr. Cook a bit of slack here, because he always brings an interesting, if old-fashioned, point of view to these discussions. Even if I can count on one hand I've ever agreed with him.
That said - the "misinterpretations or particular agendas" point is one that screamed out at me: Why is it always that the people who held Marx in high regard are ALWAYS guilty of misinterpretations or particular agendas? You are guilty of flat-out denial. People like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao used Marx's own theories in implementing their policies. There were no misinterpretations, and I'd love to hear you cite one single example of a policy the above 4 monsters put in place that didn't have Marx's ideas didn't have direct bearing on.
Robert Cook, you confuse oligarchism with both Marxism/socialism and capitalism.
In practice, it's difficult to separate them. But leftism has never really tried. It's a plutocratic philosophy.
Hoodlumdoodlum said:
"Should we? The Left does...so that kind of answers itself, doesn't it?"
(To the extent this may be true), is "the left's" analysis valid? Fair? Accurate? Assuming you would say no, then you validate the point of my rhetorical question.
I'm not arguing for the correctness of Marx's ideas; having never read him, I can't, of course. But neither have many here and elsewhere who presume to demonize him and caricature his work. I'm arguing against reflexive and wholesale rejection of everything he had to say, particularly as few of us have any notion of what he said. We've been propagandized to automatically reject any critique of capitalism as heresy, without regard to whether any of the critiques may have validity to greater or lesser degree.
I cannot say what I would think of his ideas if I read them.(I heard one economist say Marx was a good diagnostician of the ills of capitalism, but not good at providing realistically workable cures for those ills.) Humans tend toward binary thinking, where we see a particular idea or entity as either "good" or "bad." In reality, most things have their positive and negative aspects, their workable and unworkable features. I'd bet Marx has much that is valid to say about capitalism's flaws and we could learn from him; does this mean we cannot at the same time reject his suggested solutions as being unworkable? Does this mean we benefit by ignoring his diagnosis itself?
"People like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao used Marx's own theories in implementing their policies. There were no misinterpretations, and I'd love to hear you cite one single example of a policy the above 4 monsters put in place that didn't have Marx's ideas didn't have direct bearing on."
Did they? How so?
Impeaching Marxist ideas is only as difficult as showing how badly his ideas have performed in practice. Dictators everywhere it's tried; denial of even the idea of innate human rights; perhaps 100m dead over a century.
It's a vast crime, not just a bad idea.
I bet that kid's mother just LOVES him---he always cleans up after himself, does his dishes and keeps the laundry at bay....
...and now Cook trots out the "it's never been tried" thing.
Really, it's time to move on.
You might start with "The Communist Manifesto". It's a lot shorter than Das Kapital. It exposes Marx's analysis of human nature and the changeability of it, and his view of historical trends, and most importantly perhaps, his prescription for the future, in which leftists would take over. Leninism was but a small step toward real dictatorship over (not of) the proletariat.
"They went to work with unsurpassable efficiency. Full employment, a maximum of resulting output, and general well-being ought to have been the result. It is true that instead we find misery, shame and, at the end of it all, a river of blood. But that was a chance coincidence."
- Joseph Schumpeter, who wasn't referring to Marxists but produced the best description of them I have ever seen.
Robert Cook said...I'm not arguing for the correctness of Marx's ideas; having never read him, I can't, of course. But neither have many here and elsewhere who presume to demonize him and caricature his work.
Of course, no one criticizes Adam Smith without having read both the Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments; that'd be ridiculous. Plus it's silly to criticize capitalism and theories of capitalism since it's never been tried in a pure form (with supporting libertarian mores, naturally).
Look, if you want to say Marx has been badly served by people (monsters, really) who have called themselves Marxists, fine, maybe he has, but it's silly to pretend like they're not associated in any way. If he wasn't fully understood doesn't he get some of the blame for not making himself understood? If he was fully understood but his ideas didn't work then his ideas can be attacked. If he was fully understood and his ideas weren't attempted then your beef is with people who called themselves Marxists, not with people who judge the Marx but he fruits of Marxism.
If every man were paid the same, or even, like the song, no man had any possessions, then only the sexually hot guys would get the sexually hot girls. There would be no way for other men to set themselves apart and attract the hypergamous female eye.
But wait, there will remain one. Power. It takes a lot of state power to keep people from starting little businesses to get a little extra stuff in their lives. You need a surveillance state to keep people from unauthorized economic activity which may lead to some sort of "income inequality" or to the acquisition of "possessions." So only the acquisition of power over his fellow men is left as a path to the young man who wants to attract a woman more attractive than he is.
How did Marx suppose that he could prevent people from engaging in economic activity without a massive and intrusive state structure that is sure to eventually be taken over by a dictator?
Most Marxist who have obtained power, and many who tried to obtain power in the US have always had the same solution, it involved mass graves. If we could just kill every person who wants to work a little harder to be paid a little more, it will work!
Pol Pot killed everybody who wore glasses.
Robert Cook writes:
Fred Drinkwater writes:
"An engineer to Robert Cook:
'In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.' As we have seen, over and over."
Which simply underlines my point.
Robert: Of course I have no problem with anything you want to do which does not involve "practice". That would be thought control. I am not O'Brien, after all.
You're inferring; I wasn't implying anything. I certainly don't assume--just because we have been propagandized to see Marx as a boogey-man--that his work is without merit.(It is undeniably significant--meritorious or not--given the influence it has had on the world.)
Marx's work is as significant as Hitler's.
Looking at the "results" of Marx's critique of capitalism does not serve as an argument against his ideas. At best, it serves as an argument against how his ideas have been taken by others and used (or mis-used) according to their own misinterpretations or particular agendas. If one reads his ideas, one might see how much--or how little--of his analysis of Capitalism and prescription for a better economic arrangement among people has actually been tried as he envisioned.
Given that they are all tried with identical results, no matter how "different" the society is, indicates a fundamental problem with the source material. Pol Pot was a dramatically different person than Stalin --- yet the results of their following Marx's teachings, as differently as they may have done so --- was identical. Mass death.
It seems odd that following his ideas badly all lead to the identical result. You'd think that with all of the different ways to badly implement his ideas, one wouldn't have resulted in misery.
We can look at the actions of many in the name of Christ and Christianity over centuries to see how drastically a set of teachings can be perverted and put to use justifying the most ghastly atrocities of fanatics and power-mongers. Should we consider the behavior of the Catholic Church over the centuries to be an adequate argument against the philosophy of Christ?
If you provided Christianity the benefit of the doubt you provide Marxism, it is the single greatest engine of good and justice the world has ever seen.
If you don't --- it is STILL the greatest engine of good and justice the world has ever seen.
As was asked earlier, what policies did Stalin, Mao, et al pursue that were in violation of Marx's theories?
Except for Hoodlumdoodlum and I Callahan who say or hint they have read Marx, the comments here are the typical and dreary kneejerk responses one would expect in people inculcated to repudiate any idea which challenges their religious doctrine, (capitalism). As such, the remarks are worthless as critiques. They can no more speak validly against Marx than I can speak validly for him.
"If you provided Christianity the benefit of the doubt you provide Marxism, it is the single greatest engine of good and justice the world has ever seen."
What makes you think I don't credit Christianity with the value Christ's teachings offer--(as opposed to the uses to which his name has been put)?
I await supporting documentation that Christianity has been, in fact, "the greatest single engine of good and justice the world has ever seen." Sounds like an assertion of faith to me.
Dean Martin Roasts, pet rocks, David Spade and Adam Sandler movies, etc., etc.
I'll bet your car radio only plays NPR.
You guys are missing Cooke's point. It isn't that they did not try Marx's ideas. It is that they haven't found the right leader yet. We have to keep trying until we find the right of course. The theory is
Sound!
Hey, Robert Cook: I've read Marx. It's not great stuff. Well written. Full of stuff that appeals to naive individuals who might idolize what they imagine to be smart folks.
Marx is awfully windy, and thick as a post when it comes to human nature. He was better when young, like many writers. Not so much economist as social justice warrior. Easier to read when you want to enter his unbelievable world and roll with it.
Does that get me out of your quarantine of bad critics of Marx? All I've done here is assert. Is that enough? This is not a trick question.
They can no more speak validly against Marx than I can speak validly for him.
Personally, I'll allow the historical record to speak for me.
I await supporting documentation that Christianity has been, in fact, "the greatest single engine of good and justice the world has ever seen."
What documentation would you accept?
Without Christianity, Western Civilization doesn't exist. Western Civilization based on the Judeo-Christian ethical system, capitalist economic system and republican political system has produced:
The highest standard of living for the most number of people (we have almost eliminated abject poverty around the world, when it was once the standard condition around the world),
The highest level of technology,
The highest level of individual freedom, in history.
I'll rest my case on that record.
Instead of fighting wars of conquest, the United States fights wars to free people. Then we help rebuild our defeated enemies instead of pillaging them.
Without Christianity, Western Civilization doesn't exist. Western Civilization based on the Judeo-Christian ethical system, capitalist economic system and republican political system has produced:
Really? Britain and the nordic countries are "republican political systems"?
The serfdom prevalent throughout most of Europe's "western" history was an aberration?
If Capitalism's Faithful are so sure of the flawless perfection of their creed, why do they fail to differentiate Western and Northern Europe's economies and governments from South Asian and Soviet economies and governments? Further, why do they fail to accept that there is less income mobility in America than in most of Europe? Why do they admire heirs (like Trump) and heiresses no less than they do self-made men? (Like Elon Musk, Sergei Bryn and George Soros).
I'll tell you why. It's because they love materialism, and they use that as a cover for the pretension that they love opportunity and the freedom that exemplifies it and that it rewards. And it's because they love privilege, they love inequality, they love the idea that anyone less materially successful must have made themselves become less materially successful, and that anyone who is materially successful benefited nothing from things they didn't have to work for - like talent, a more commercial outlook on life, family connections and a supportive upbringing.
You are not even capitalists. You are serfs to a billionaire political class who project your dreams onto them the way a parent would onto their children. Just as the serfs projected patriotism through the landholders who employed them, housed them and sent them into war, you project your own patriotism through billionaires that you will never be and and confuse their own opportunities for your own.
Why are people naive when it comes to Marx? You can draw a direct line from his writing to the millions killed in the Gulags. Dictatorship of the proletariat anyone?
Read his writings on the Paris Commune. Marx approved a violence as a way to "liberate" the Proletariat and steal everyone's property since the "Bourgeoisie" wouldn't give it up without a struggle.
100 million dead and assholes are still running around acting like it was a good idea that was badly executed.
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
Without Christianity, Western Civilization doesn't exist. Western Civilization based on the Judeo-Christian ethical system, capitalist economic system and republican political system has produced:
Really? Britain and the nordic countries are "republican political systems"?
The serfdom prevalent throughout most of Europe's "western" history was an aberration?
If Capitalism's Faithful are so sure of the flawless perfection of their creed, why do they fail to differentiate Western and Northern Europe's economies and governments from South Asian and Soviet economies and governments? Further, why do they fail to accept that there is less income mobility in America than in most of Europe? Why do they admire heirs (like Trump) and heiresses no less than they do self-made men? (Like Elon Musk, Sergei Bryn and George Soros).
I'll tell you why. It's because they love materialism, and they use that as a cover for the pretension that they love opportunity and the freedom that exemplifies it and that it rewards. And it's because they love privilege, they love inequality, they love the idea that anyone less materially successful must have made themselves become less materially successful, and that anyone who is materially successful benefited nothing from things they didn't have to work for - like talent, a more commercial outlook on life, family connections and a supportive upbringing.
You are not even capitalists. You are serfs to a billionaire political class who project your dreams onto them the way a parent would onto their children. Just as the serfs projected patriotism through the landholders who employed them, housed them and sent them into war, you project your own patriotism through billionaires that you will never be and and confuse their own opportunities for your own.
Free markets always work.
I'd explain why, but after that incoherent screed above I doubt you'd comprehend.
You are not pro-free market. The work you worship is the work of freely redistributing wealth upward.
You cannot cite anything incoherent in what you quoted. And that's why you just re-posted the whole comment in its entirety, with a response that was not an argument for anything. Just an incoherent assertion. (Again, "work" to do what, and what was "unfree" about my criticism? If you mean "work" as in "succeed" then pat yourself on your piggy-backing piggy-back for working to make Donald Trump, etc., wealthier at your own expense. Learning the concept of the word "value" might get you somewhere, but that presumes you understand or even embrace the concepts of "worth" or "quality", which you clearly don't.)
""There are no depths of irony, or bad taste, to which capitalists won’t sink if they think they can make money out of it.""
He said, while standing atop the mass graves of millions.
Happily, those millions were murdered by non-capitalists.
So, you know, comforting.
R&B's: "The work you worship is the work of freely redistributing wealth upward."
Please submit your payment promptly this month.
I would hate to have make a "note" in your permanent record.
Your. Permanent. Record.
Having to pay £4 - 6 to visit a public urinal seems excessive to me.
"There are no depths of irony, or bad taste, to which capitalists won’t sink"
Piss Christ
Lena Dunham
The Vagina Monologues
The Truth
Any Michael Moore Movie
Rhythm and Balls said...
"You are not even capitalists. You are serfs to a billionaire political class who project your dreams onto them the way a parent would onto their children. Just as the serfs projected patriotism through the landholders who employed them, housed them and sent them into war, you project your own patriotism through billionaires that you will never be and and confuse their own opportunities for your own."
I would like to point out that the billionaire political class funneled record amounts of cash into the Obama campaign. They fund the parts of the GOP party that are in a war with the base of the GOP party. The quickness with which Hillary has sewn up the Democrat nomination and is now inevitable should make everyone worry. She will receive obscene amounts of money if the republicans nominate someone outside the political class.
Most of us sense the opportunities that were once there and are not now there. I could write a very lengthy piece about how government regulations specifically relating to employing people and taxation are destroying entrepreneurship. Most people used to work for someone that they knew at least in passing. That is no longer the case. It cost us over $50000 in taxes to employ 7 full time people and a temporary harvest crew of 10 more last year. We have no employees now and are working as indentured servants to pay these taxes and other taxes back. We can't even sniff at the costs Obamacare would inflict on us.
I am not going to get into it as I need to get back to work. But I share your frustration about wealth being drained to the top. The problem is they are using Leviathan to accomplish this and you seem to want to make Leviathan larger and more powerful. I would love to hire those people back and see my kid. Government is the force that stops me from doing that.
I would heartily endorse a law that said any company smaller than X employees/gross revenue was exempt from federal regulations. That would level the playing field as we don't get the handouts the big companies do.
Rhythm and Balls said...
You are not pro-free market. The work you worship is the work of freely redistributing wealth upward.
You're at your most amusing when you don't know what you're talking about. But please go on. I find your opinions fascinating.
I await supporting documentation that Christianity has been, in fact, "the greatest single engine of good and justice the world has ever seen." Sounds like an assertion of faith to me.
You mean outside of the numerous hospitals they run? The orphanages they run? The charity they administer? Who takes care of the dying (hint: Governments don't do shit)?
Western civilization used to be great until a bunch of Leftist shitbricks decided that it had to go so we can import the most backwards and repressive ideologies known to man to "speak truth to power". There isn't a hell hot enough to punish Marx for what he did. My only regret is that his death wasn't particularly painful.
The serfdom prevalent throughout most of Europe's "western" history was an aberration?
The serfdom was temporary --- but set in stone in Marxist societies where the serfs were beholden to the government.
Further, why do they fail to accept that there is less income mobility in America than in most of Europe?
There likely is. It's not capitalism that is causing that. It's regulation supported by fucking idiots that is causing it.
You are serfs to a billionaire political class
Says a guaranteed Hillary voter...
You know who the ONLY voters who AREN'T serfs to a billionaire political class are? The Tea Party conservatives you refer to as a wide array of names.
We're the only legit ones out there. You?
You're just a fucking poseur.
How about this --- Democrats and Republicans are fighting conservatives about requiring 40 hour work weeks to qualify somebody for Obamacare? Why? Because with the 30 hour weeks, people are given enough hours to not qualify but too few to live off of.
But then they are beggars, which is what Dems want.
"You guys are missing Cooke's point. It isn't that they did not try Marx's ideas. It is that they haven't found the right leader yet. We have to keep trying until we find the right of course. The theory is Sound!"
WRONG! As usual for you, Achilles. I'm beginning to think you don't know how to read.
"I'll bet your car radio only plays NPR."
I don't have a car, and I don't listen to NPR when I do listen to radio.
WRONG! As usual for you, Achilles. I'm beginning to think you don't know how to read.
Yeah. Your opinion is that all of those times that Marxist "thought" (and that is stretching that term horribly. Marxist thought is as deep as Nazi ideology) was done and slaughtered millions, they did it "wrong".
What they did "wrong" is never once explained, but totally, it was wrong.
"You know who the ONLY voters who AREN'T serfs to a billionaire political class are? The Tea Party conservatives you refer to as a wide array of names."
OMG! What third party candidates are the Tea Party voters supporting? If they're supporting any major party candidates, they are serfs to the billionaire political class.
Damikesc,
You're also demonstrating that you don't know how to read.
Cook, notice how the Establishment Republicans, the ones who are almost as beholden to big business as Dems are, are having huge problems with their base? The Tea Party is the base. We gave them a Congressional majority and are willing to pull it. The Dems are the house slaves to billionaires (care to compare Steyer donations to the Kochs?).
Cook, I've read both Mein Kampf (tedious slot) and Das Kapital (also tedious slog). To claim that either one has any intellectual weight behind it is to be delusional.
What a touchy nerve we've found!
If the fee does not cover permission to piss on the ground his corpse is buried in, then raise the fee to cover that activity, and make a damn fortune.
Robert Cook said...
"You guys are missing Cooke's point. It isn't that they did not try Marx's ideas. It is that they haven't found the right leader yet. We have to keep trying until we find the right of course. The theory is Sound!"
"WRONG! As usual for you, Achilles. I'm beginning to think you don't know how to read."
It could be that. Or it could be I am applying critical thinking skills you do not possess. Hard to tell for someone like you I guess.
Post a Comment