I believe, that the way he explained his view on this new social system is a metaphor for something else other then equal money. Look at the way Germany has always been treated during the time he was alive. Put down, rich lives here, poorman lives here, racial diversity in the economy is a mess (Jews, ect.). Because listen to what these people who were always put down in these different countrys during the time thought for fair share. Not alot of equality, therefore what a better way to fix it then fixing our morals, and economy systems. Because who wants to live in a country knowing one minority is rich, while just because how history has gone they (Odd man out) are put down in politics also financially. And what better way to try to fix these peoples thinking on others then saying “Hey, lets share our money, with no rich or poor,” since look at these people who are heralded during that time period for having money. Obviously no immigrants were heralded, just poison to their homeland these new people came into. And Karl Marx with this average Joe friendly money system, you’d think because you have the same lifestyle that you’d stop putting these horrible stereotypes on others. And how people view equality back then, like how French hated the Britains, thinking their the literal sh*t of the earth.
Just saying basically with small obvious examples. I believe he wanted more then just money deprived equality, just was scared of how to interpret these goals on paper. Seeing how people judged very poorly, and could think he was a cultist maybe, seeing how he believes in racial equality. While theres still people labeled as white, black, yellow, red, jew, ect.
I think he just wanted full human equality. Money wise, and basic humanity wise. Look at Brad Pitt, heralded because he’s handsome ect. Then there could be someone like a innocent killed by capital punishment because he might be poor man, but his ideas on world events could be top of the line. And anyone could come up with equal sharing of money. While its how you add in your moral views in life, that wins these peoples thinking to side with you. Unintentional how they did it (these past great thinkers).
Ok one last time. Was Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have A Dream,” that complex or grammatically correct?? To English teachers a 4 word sentence is horrid. But that still won the support of millions. People get bored with whats politically correct. Look at rock n roll bands breaking stuff for example, is that politically correct per say?? No, but its the small mistakes that could be right (like for entertainment that example) in winning the peoples support. Great thinkers always had their own personal agenda, but they intergrated it into their work slower then I may do. Thats why you people on here don’t like it. Its to many new ideas “to quick,” that have personal views intergrated into it that people don’t like sometimes. Because certain groups of people just care about pleasing themselves, even if the new idea may be right. Thats not evolution (which everyone wants whether it be their thinking, or physically) , waiting for your own timing.
No, they didn’t have to deal with the economy struggles most likely when Marx lived. Just saying maybe he was a strong religious man, who hid his true side. But intergrated it into this new social system. All I know is, if you don’t rub it off. It does seem to fit the views of a Christian more then any other thing, the idea of economic equality that is. What other thing throughout history has created more social barriers then money??
i agree with you, except that my point is that anybody who comes up with a good, equalizing idea can be said to have a secret religious agenda. i have an equalizing economic theory, you could have written this thread about me.
what i think you really want to do is start lambasting those god forsaken christians and their golden chalices. saying marx was secretly a proponent of the golden rule… its so obvious that its not worth saying.
Jesus said God “created all men equal in His sight”. This merely implies that no human is born with any “higher form of human-ness”.
This is not in anyway intended as a metaphor for communism or anything of the such.
Inherent-human equality is allways present. No human can ever truly make himself inherently greater in human-ness than another.
True, we as human-beings, divided ourselves into social classes in order to live as a civilization (i.e. some men become kings, others become business men, and still others become farmers). Each level of social staus carries a corresponding level of authority, etc. But this does not actually make someone become inherently greater than another.
i and jesus dont care about what the magical innateness looks like, we care about how jerks treat others. billionaire jerks hoard money when they could very easily help countless thousands of the downtrodden. laws are in place that allow michael eisner to be paid 61,000 times as much as some of his employees. barf.
maybe jesus wouldnt have recommended that we make the world look like the soviet union. what i am much more sure of than that fact is that he damn sure would not have recommended that the world looks like the united states.
i imagine he is still kicking himself up in heaven for coming down too early to affect real economic changes.
ps when i said that, i was making fun of golden arm
Actually, I feel that in some sense you are correct. Specifically, that I too highly doubt that Jesus would ever “advocate” a government like the United States has or any other country has…
…in fact, I personally feel that Jesus advocates only one type of Government: A Theocracy — rule by God.
Humans, being a weak and imperfect creature, are simply not capable of ever creating a government that is ever ideal. We are simply too corrupt. Hence, we cannot help but create corrupt governments (or at least, governments that are inclinded towards corruption).
Right, the point of Marxism is to return the control of people’s lives back to themselves.
Welcome to America!
I’m not sure about scared, Marx was a powerful writer, a powerful mind and hardly bashful about his revolutionary spirit. What we must remember about the Communist Manifesto is that it is a polemical piece. It was meant to rally the socialists. You are right, it wasn’t just money that deprived equality. Marx understands Capital as the totality of social relations were one group of people are forced to sell their labor and another group, who owns the means of production and final product, purchases that labor for profit. Marx’s primary contention with capital was the way it exploited the power of social labor through a social relations.
I’m not sure about his work around racial inequality. For Marx, all these inequalities are primarily class antagonisms. Marx’s appeal to internationalism (including the communist manifesto) is probably the best ground for resisting racial inequalities. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Independent of ALL nationality!
I’m not sure what political correctness has to do with this, in fact, I’m not even sure what it is anymore.
Despite the work of religious leaders towards equality, their religions have always been set up divisely. I think there is some great ideas of social justice happening in religion but the notion of chosen people is a great vehicle for class antagonisms and a justification for radical inequality. Just ask the 700 club in the US.
Marx came onto the historical scene in the rise of capitalism, when it was still just a tendency. The previous economic systems were different but still marked with inequality. An interesting note, Marx did not want a return to pre-capitalist economic, he was glad to see the Feudal form go and pointed out many positives of capital over the feudal system.
Religion has created more social barriers than money, in fact, money often brings interfaith communities together (that and fighting same-sex marriage). Marx was not religious, such transcendental ideas were very contrary to nearly everything he wrote. His Theses on Feurbach gives some insight on this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
(It is best to compare it with Feurbach and with Hegel)
I was just trying to place my thinking for my first post in the shoes of the writers of the book the “Communist Manifesto.” And what they were getting at with their beliefs of a new social system.
