IBDaMann
Well-known member
gfm7175 is one of the few people who I allow to speak for Jesus. You are not.
Marx
- Thread starter goat
- Start date
How would you know, honestly?
You've never read Marx. You have no clue what the subject is - you only know that your party supports Marxism - so you do.
Of course Marx did not write of "stages of capitalism" as that would be utterly stupid. Marx wrote of the stages of HISTORY and organizational structures. The OP is simply ignorant.
-------------------------------------------------
1) the tribal form. Tribal society has no social classes but is structured around kinship relations, with hunting the province of men and domestic work the province of women. The tribal form, according to Marx and Engels, is quite elementary at this stage, "a further extension of the natural division of labour existing in the family" (44). During this stage, it is also possible to see a slave culture established, particularly as the population increases, leading to "the growth of wants" and the growth of relations with outside civilizations (through war or barter). With slave culture, we see the beginning of class society.
2) primitive communism: "the ancient communal and State ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest" (44). During this stage, the concept of private property begins to develop: "With the development of private property, we find here for the first time the same conditions which we shall find again, only on a more extensive scale, with modern private property. On the one hand, the concentration of private property...; on the other hand, coupled with this, the transformation of the plebeian small peasantry into a proletariat" (44-45).
3) feudal or estate property: "Like tribal and communal ownership, it is based again on a community; but the directly producing class standing over against it is not, as in the case of the ancient community, the slaves, but the enserfed small peasantry" (45). In the city, the feudal structure manifested itself in trade guilds. The organization of both the country and the city "was determined by the restricted conditions of production—the small-scale and primitive cultivation of the land, and the craft type of industry" (46), which meant that there "was little division of labour in the heyday of feudalism" (46). Exploitation functioned differently during stage than during the heigth of capitalism because each feudal peasant knew exactly what proportion of his labor had to be handed over to the aristocracy and the church; the rest was his or hers to use.
4) capitalism: because of the eventual growth of commerce (and of human populations), feudal society began to accumulate capital, which, along with the increased debt incurred by the aristocracy, eventually led to the English Revolution of 1640 and the French Revolution of 1789, both of which opened the way for the establishment of a society structured around commodities and profit (i.e. capitalism). In such a society, the proletariat is fooled into believing that s/he is free because s/he is paid for his/her labor. In fact, the transformation of labor into an abstract quantity that can be bought and sold on the market leads to the exploitation of the proletariat, benefitting a small percentage of the population in control of capital. The working class thus experiences alienation since the members of this class feel they are not in control of the forces driving them into a given job. The reason for this situation is that someone else owns the means of production, which are treated like private property.
https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/marxism/modules/marxstages.html
BidenPresident
Verified User
I have read a lot of Marx.
Marx never wrote or stated what the OP claimed. The OP is merely ignorant - or more likely, echoing the ignorance from some democrat hate site.
We have to remember that the left here is VERY poorly educated and generally not very bright.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Marx never wrote or stated what the OP claimed. The OP is merely ignorant - or more likely, echoing the ignorance from some democrat hate site.
We have to remember that the left here is VERY poorly educated and generally not very bright.
you're a dope
The Sage of Main Street
Verified User
Two Wings of the Same Entitled Elitist Vulture
Marx was an irrelevant academic. That ilk is expert at confusing the issues, and channeling them off to dreamy fantasies. Both Capitalism and Communism install outside ownership, which is the real problem. Dr. Marx was an infallible father-figure to his gullible students and appealed to their sense of being born to rule with absolute power, especially by making his theories appear to be the final result of where history was heading.
BidenPresident
Verified User
What a bunch of gibberish.
Marx was not an economist, he was a political philosopher.
Why do you pretend that you have knowledge of Marx, when you clearly have none?
The last economic book I read was "The Great Devaluation."
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Devaluation-Embrace-Prepare-Monetary/dp/111969146X
Unlike you, I've read "Capitol, Vol. 1." It is NOT a difficult read and contains some insightful information. Marx was the original professional student. He wrote from the perspective of a man never entering the real world. All was theory and speculation. But Marx was far from stupid, and much he wrote has merit. His conclusions are wrong, as a cloistered academic, Marx was divorced from the reality of life. Marx wrote freelance for a variety of Newspapers, but never held an actual job.
I've read "The General Theory"
I've read "Man, Economy, and the State." (utterly brilliant)
I've read "Capitalism and Freedom."
The Sage of Main Street
Verified User
Hereditary Power Is the Well-Hidden Cancer That Has Destroyed All Civilizations
He was a richkid, married to a countess. Engels, another HeirHead, had to bail him out after Marx put his own family through voluntary "romantic" poverty. Then his ignorant ideas put Russia through that, and it wasn't very romantic.
Sure he did, he was a freelance writer.
He never held a job - but he sold articles to a dozen different Newspapers, including the New York Tribune.
BidenPresident
Verified User
What do you think economists do, dipshit? They spend 10 years in the academy doing research.
First you say he was an economist, now a sociologist?
It's closer than economist, but Marx was a political philosopher. He practices none of the rigors of sociology.
Did you read a comic book about Marx, or something?
The Sage of Main Street
Verified User
Just Us
Neither do many other richkids, and Rightists have no problem with that. Of course, Leftists love their Kennedys and other guillotine-fodder who preach about social justice.
One of the stupidest attempts by Marxists to coopt the heroes of the enemy. Lenin proscribed such acts, I don't believe Marx would have approved.
BidenPresident
Verified User
you're a stupid troll
Marx critique of capitalism is proving to come true. Marx detailed why society deserves better. That makes Marx both an economist and a sociologist.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Adam Smith, founder of capitalist theory, was a professor of moral philosophy.
Facts on a moron like you, is like salt on a slug.
No offense to slugs intended.