Karl Marx: Demonologist

[Tarquelne]

Hey Traitorfish, are you up for playing this as a Dark Heresy game?
I always thought Marx could use pauldrons.

One of my favorite RPG characters was a fanatic communist in a post-apocalyptic world. He'd found copies of Das Kapital and an H.P. Lovecraft anthology in an old trunk. The bindings had rotted (along with quite a bit of each book.) The character thought there was just one book: Das Kapital. Needless to say he wasn't exactly an orthodox Marxist. Though he tried to follow-through on everything he'd read in that trunk - everything - as much as possible.

 

[Traitorfish]

One of my favorite RPG characters was a fanatic communist in a post-apocalyptic world. He'd found copies of Das Kapital and an H.P. Lovecraft anthology in an old trunk. The bindings had rotted (along with quite a bit of each book.) The character thought there was just one book: Das Kapital. Needless to say he wasn't exactly an orthodox Marxist. Though he tried to follow-through on everything he'd read in that trunk - everything - as much as possible.

And if only that were the most insane derivation of Marx I've ever encountered!

 

[Lone Wolf]

I like Heine. The author of that article is stupid, pathetic and uncool for mentioning Heine in a negative light

I am dissapointed in this article, though. I expected to find a legitimate discussion on Marx's shortcomings.

 

[amadeus]

Is it really the case that Marxism is not yet so thoroughly debunked that it necessitates accusing him of being a Satanist? Let them solve the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem first, then we can move on to slander.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Is it really the case that Marxism is not yet so thoroughly debunked that it necessitates accusing him of being a Satanist? Let them solve the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem first, then we can move on to slander.

Well I'll just re-iterate my earlier idea: Communism and Christianity have a lot in common when you look at the ideologies. Just replace the worker of Communism with the poor man of Christianity, or vice versa, and you see common themes starting to develop - the empowerment and welfare of less fortunate individuals.

So, what better way to distance the two then saying Communism is Satanic?

It really is nuts to start slandering like this, though.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Well I'll just re-iterate my earlier idea: Communism and Christianity have a lot in common when you look at the ideologies. Just replace the worker of Communism with the poor man of Christianity, or vice versa, and you see common themes starting to develop - the empowerment and welfare of less fortunate individuals.

So, what better way to distance the two then saying Communism is Satanic?

It really is nuts to start slandering like this, though.

Interestingly enough the author does have an article about communism and Christianity

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it really the case that Marxism is not yet so thoroughly debunked that it necessitates accusing him of being a Satanist? Let them solve the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem first, then we can move on to slander.

Isn't obvious? Those shall be resolved by means of a blood-pact with the Infernal Prince Astaroth. Socialist revolution is just the process of gathering together enough slaves for the ritual sacrifice.

 

[GoodGame]

still, if he was a rastafarian, his hair would make much more sense. i think i win.

ROFLCOPTER!!! I think your post is full of win.

I like how the OP accuses of Marx of being a stupid plagiarist. Stupid OP? The claim is staked on the review of one man, listed as a social conservative in wikipedia. Bias, much? Also, isn't "devil possession" essentially one big ad hominen, especially when the author admits that it can't be verified in history? Pretty stupid basis for a "critical analysis".

Not even going to touch the claim of Marx being bloody handed in the actions of others. Along those lines, he contributed to the death toll of the ACW through his correspondence with Lincoln. Very stupid reasoning.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

From Canada Free Press:


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39223

Now, this is an... Interesting article, but as a devotee of the Most Sacred Prophet Carolus Marxus, May His Name Be Revered In All Nations, I'm not really in a position to make a sound, objective judgement. So perhaps the good fellows of CivFanatics could help me out in better understanding this reasonable, down-to-earth and inarguably well-formatted piece?

I was always taught that the mature Marx was an objective, scientific dialectican, but does anybody remember that he cooly suggested the inevitable otherthrow of the bourgeois by the working class through Violent revolution? I dont know what everybody else thinks , but this gives me an impression of Marx as a person who expressees his self-restrained feelings by trying to find a rational reason for it. Maybe he was pouring out his pent up feelings of outrage towards his own lamentable fate through his works? This is the personal impression that I get, and it does ring a bell with the article for me, at least.

 

[Traitorfish]

I was always taught that the mature Marx was an objective, scientific dialectican, but does anybody remember that he cooly suggested the inevitable otherthrow of the bourgeois by the working class through Violent revolution? I dont know what everybody else thinks , but this gives me an impression of Marx as a person who expressees his self-restrained feelings by trying to find a rational reason for it. Maybe he was pouring out his pent up feelings of outrage towards his own lamentable fate through his works? This is the personal impression that I get, and it does ring a bell with the article for me, at least.

I don't think that it's really possible to infer a prediction like that from Marx past the early 1950s, and that was more a product of the particular, notoriously exceptional political circumstances of the time. (Let's remember, The Communist Manifesto was published quite literally less than a week before Parisian workers started throwing up barricades.) After that, his discussion of revolution becomes a bit more sober, and he's able to establish a body of theory that makes sense of what may at first appear to be rather messianic predictions. His argument for the inevitability of the overthrow of capitalism is part of his materialist conception of history, which sees all modes of production eventually being superseded through the resolution of their internal antagonisms, his argument for the working class as the agency of the revolution is based on his theorising of the internal antagonisms of capitalism as the opposition of labour and capital, the former taking its human form as the working class and the latter as the bourgeoisie, and he predicted that this revolution would be violent because it did not seem likely, least of all to a man born in the shadow of the guillotine, that a revolution could occur in any other fashion.
Of course, none of that means that his passion for communism did not have some individual emotive factor- by his own reasoning it must have, given that as a petty bourgeois professional he had no material interest in it- and it's important to keep in mind how that may have coloured his writings, but that doesn't actually mean he's wrong, or that he was not able to offer an essentially solid materialist analysis. Just means that you should read it with the same healthy level of scepticism that you'd read any contentious work with.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I don't think that it's really possible to infer a prediction like that from Marx past the early 1950s, and that was more a product of the particular, notoriously exceptional political circumstances of the time. (Let's remember, The Communist Manifesto was published quite literally less than a week before Parisian workers started throwing up barricades.) After that, his discussion of revolution becomes a bit more sober, and he's able to establish a body of theory that makes sense of what may at first appear to be rather messianic predictions. His argument for the inevitability of the overthrow of capitalism is part of his materialist conception of history, which sees all modes of production eventually being superseded through the resolution of their internal antagonisms, his argument for the working class as the agency of the revolution is based on his theorising of the internal antagonisms of capitalism as the opposition of labour and capital, the former taking its human form as the working class and the latter as the bourgeoisie, and he predicted that this revolution would be violent because it did not seem likely, least of all to a man born in the shadow of the guillotine, that a revolution could occur in any other fashion.
Of course, none of that means that his passion for communism did not have some individual emotive factor- by his own reasoning it must have, given that as a petty bourgeois professional he had no material interest in it- and it's important to keep in mind how that may have coloured his writings, but that doesn't actually mean he's wrong, or that he was not able to offer an essentially solid materialist analysis. Just means that you should read it with the same healthy level of scepticism that you'd read any contentious work with.

The man was brilliant in the labour-capital analysis, yes I do admit that. On this, I would add my own thoughts: Neither Capital or Labour has any intrinsic value. The system decides which is more valuable, hence capital. Creative impulses embodded in labour can only be constructively fulfilled with capital, because with different sources of capital there comes competition, and in this mode of production, through repeated successes and failures, men can gradually realize their creative impulses that make them desire to labour. In a system where Labour has more value, I would argue that creative impulses become destructive in the long-term due to unrestricted free-rein of our creative impulses - to make my point, one should remember how NPV for projects inside the USSR fell exponentially annually throughout the years of its existence. And there would be problem of economic distribution and the system of credit.

But this is my own biased thoughts, and to come back to Marx, I'd say he would be lying to himself to deny his own individuality and adhering to scientific objectivism from an existential point of view, particularly in his later years of life. This always comes to mind when reading his works, especially the Manuscripts which was completely unlike his mature works later on.

 

[Leoreth]

The good thing about that ... even if all of this were true, it doesn't change the validity of anything he wrote at all.

 

[Till]

He summoned the spectre of Communism, not the demon of Communism. That makes him a necromancer, not a demonologist. Geez...

 

[Alassius]

He summoned the spectre of Communism, not the demon of Communism. That makes him a necromancer, not a demonologist. Geez...

A conjuror, necromancer is one who raises the dead.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The good thing about that ... even if all of this were true, it doesn't change the validity of anything he wrote at all.

Provided you believe in Marxism, yes.

Though, the point is true, though some are perfectionists and discredit any view, no matter how correct, if it was said by someone who was prone to non-correct views.

Luther said something along the lines of some sin being necessary to avoid corruption to even greater sin, but since Luther also said a lot of controversial things, suddenly the comment is irrelevant! Likewise, his preaching of reading the Bible for yourself rather than some cleric.

Guilt by association sucks.

A conjuror, necromancer is one who raises the dead.

Strange, I thought Communism was dead. So, necromancy.

Clearly, we can deduce that Marx was a time traveller. He summoned Communism back from the future to the past, so Communism would establish itself and die out, and then the cycle repeats.

 

[Leoreth]

Provided you believe in Marxism, yes.

Actually, no. I never said anything about the validity of Marx's positions, only that it doesn't change no matter what his motivations were. And you can agree with Marx on many issues even without being a (political) Marxist, which I'm not.

 

[Traitorfish]

The man was brilliant in the labour-capital analysis, yes I do admit that. On this, I would add my own thoughts: Neither Capital or Labour has any intrinsic value. The system decides which is more valuable, hence capital. Creative impulses embodded in labour can only be constructively fulfilled with capital, because with different sources of capital there comes competition, and in this mode of production, through repeated successes and failures, men can gradually realize their creative impulses that make them desire to labour. In a system where Labour has more value, I would argue that creative impulses become destructive in the long-term due to unrestricted free-rein of our creative impulses...

That's true within capitalism, perhaps, but not at all pertinent to communism as Marx conceived it. For Marx, capitalism was at a fundamental level the separation of labour and capital, and communism, in being the negation of capitalism, was the "reunification" of capital and labour, which would seem to generate a system to which your criticism does not apply, or at least not in the same form.

...to make my point, one should remember how NPV for projects inside the USSR fell exponentially annually throughout the years of its existence. And there would be problem of economic distribution and the system of credit.

Problems of capitalism, though, because the USSR was not a socialist society in the Marxian conception. The very fact that there was a system of circulation to deterioration demonstrates that pretty neatly.

But this is my own biased thoughts, and to come back to Marx, I'd say he would be lying to himself to deny his own individuality and adhering to scientific objectivism from an existential point of view, particularly in his later years of life. This always comes to mind when reading his works, especially the Manuscripts which was completely unlike his mature works later on.

Well, that's getting into material which has been debated since Marx's death, so you'll forgive me if I don't weight in.

The good thing about that ... even if all of this were true, it doesn't change the validity of anything he wrote at all.

True!

 

[ParkCungHee]

He summoned the spectre of Communism, not the demon of Communism. That makes him a necromancer, not a demonologist. Geez...

We've gone from Dark Heresy to Magic the Gathering.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

That's true within capitalism, perhaps, but not at all pertinent to communism as Marx conceived it. For Marx, capitalism was at a fundamental level the separation of labour and capital, and communism, in being the negation of capitalism, was the "reunification" of capital and labour, which would seem to generate a system to which your criticism does not apply, or at least not in the same form.


Problems of capitalism, though, because the USSR was not a socialist society in the Marxian conception. The very fact that there was a system of circulation to deterioration demonstrates that pretty neatly.


Well, that's getting into material which has been debated since Marx's death, so you'll forgive me if I don't weight in.


True!

How can a society have a method of distribution then if you dont have any form of credit? Subsistence Agriculture?

 

[Traitorfish]

How can a society have a method of distribution then if you dont have any form of credit? Subsistence Agriculture?

I meant that the credit system in the USSR was situated within a system of circulating money, which Marx rules out fairly explicitly in the Critique of the Gotha Program and elsewhere as being incompatible with communism. The USSR was in the Marxian conception a form of capitalism, merely an historically exceptional one, a product of unusual historical circumstances.