Was Marx right?
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 5:50 pm
- Reputation: 0
Re: Was Marx right?
yes and in that sense he was more a philosopher/prophet in the judeo-christian tradition and certainly influenced by it rather than an "economist" in today's sense...Rain Dog wrote:Marx's Communism -- was essentially about serving Humanity and serving each other ... a communal existence so to speak
i think we sometimes get bogged down in the merits of his writings as a social scientist that we miss the moral strength and imperative of his observations which as someone else pointed out have much merit today...
the fact that others have gone on to bastardise and corrupt these ideas is a separate issue...
- JBTrain
- Expatriate
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 3:44 pm
- Reputation: 98
- Location: Phnom Penh
- Contact:
Re: Was Marx right?
It's not a tricky question at all. Jesus self identified as a Jew. His disciples and the Romans viewed him as a Jew. "I am the Word" and a lot of the crazy shit portraying Jesus as outside the Jewish tradition comes from the book of John, written many generations after Jesus ' death with a clear anti-Jewish agenda not found in the earlier texts.Rain Dog wrote:I think this is a very tricky question actually. I guess he might be considered an "Ethnic" Jew although I find it dubious that anyone said to be of a "Virgin Birth" can really claim ethnicity. If he truly said "I am the Word" then that would be Heresy to Judaism right? Was this not one of the reasons the Jewish "Priests" worked to have him crucified?StroppyChops wrote:Correct - He died a fully practicing Jew, He didn't replace the Law, He completed it.JBTrain wrote:Certainly not. Separating Jesus from Judaism was the work of others long after his death.vladimir wrote:Thanks, guys, some good ideas.
@SC, yes, old Jeezer was a Jew, but he was the first Christian, yes?
It seems to me a "Heretic" may be a better description --- and I do not mean that in an unflattering way.
Cheers,
RD
The virgin birth, not that it matters to your point, isn't even mentioned in Paul, Mark, or John. Marketing.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4476301
Using Tapatalk
- vladimir
- The Pun-isher
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
- Reputation: 185
- Location: The Kremlin
Re: Was Marx right?
My point was that he was the first Christian was based on the fact that his followers named the movement after him, not a difference in his lineage or (reported) beliefs.
But we seem to have digressed from Marx somewhat.
I think Marx was a brilliant thinker who was crucified by capitalists for daring to suggest profit should have a conscience. Human nature led to communism's failure, and the unfettered capitalists got a free pass, to the extent that no one ever cares about society anymore, and Hollywood marketing for one glorifies the greed factor.
Anyone even suggesting a social conscience now is labelled a commie, and the failure of Russia etc, is pointed out, whilst the failures/evils of capitalism are hushed up and people who mention them are labelled conspiracy theorists.
But we seem to have digressed from Marx somewhat.
I think Marx was a brilliant thinker who was crucified by capitalists for daring to suggest profit should have a conscience. Human nature led to communism's failure, and the unfettered capitalists got a free pass, to the extent that no one ever cares about society anymore, and Hollywood marketing for one glorifies the greed factor.
Anyone even suggesting a social conscience now is labelled a commie, and the failure of Russia etc, is pointed out, whilst the failures/evils of capitalism are hushed up and people who mention them are labelled conspiracy theorists.
Last edited by vladimir on Sat May 16, 2015 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right?
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:56 pm
- Reputation: 54
Re: Was Marx right?
Yes, he did envision classlessness but did not include the peasant class in his thoughts. He was mainly concerned with miners and factory workers who toiled away 16 hours a day for a few pennies and at great health hazards.that's not correct - the final stage envisioned by Marx was an entire collapse of class; a classless society. For Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat was merely a necessary stage in order to reach classlessness.
This is the interpretation of various (mostly Western) scholars. If you read his works you will find that he did not see himself as a philosopher but as a journalist who used the working conditions as a basis of what would ideally be the best remedy and solution for mankind, namely, a classless society.Again - that isn't correct. Marxist thought is - by definition - a materialist philosophy of history. "A theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised".
What I meant so say is that his theories would remain just that, as history in the late 19th and the entire 20th century would prove that his thoughts were ideals without any foundation in the real world. He was a utopian thinker without taking into account the complexity of the human mind. Of course, that did not prevent people from following his thoughts and ideals by instituting regimes of repression to bring about that change in the human mind by force, which then only resulted in apathy and lethargy so that set production goals would never be reached setting the Communist world on a path to failure, although it did take a while.His theory wasn't invalidated by American-style capitalism. His theory is, if anything, more relevant today than ever. His theory is, after all, a critique of capitalism. Furthermore, American capitalism has been *so successful* around the world in large part due to American economic imperialism, driven by American foreign policy designed to export liberal democracy around the world in order to suit US ends. Capitalism isn't just 'how it is' - its development around the world is very much by design; a design which was in large part enforced through coercion and violence. Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that European-style social democracy is probably the best system of socioeconomic management there is (so far - the idealist in me says things could be so much better than that though) - I just want to point out that capitalism isn't necessarily natural.
I do agree that American economic imperialism accomplished what Marxism as practiced by his dogmatic followers (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) could not because of their use of force in implementing communism. But nevertheless, capitalism in all its forms proved him wrong as the majority of the world saw it was simply impractical. In this sense you can’t say it is more relevant than ever. It simply is utopian. What he also did not foresee was the emergence of an entirely new economic sector - the financial industry; an industry that does not produce anything but generates profits by speculating on in this day and age inflated values of stocks, unfortunately rendering the term 'arch-capitalists' as used by Communists very true.
Natural is the aspiration of man (I know this term is nowadays not pc) to have a harmonious and prosperous life. In Marx's utopian views that would be achieved - if only all humans thought likewise. Similarly, capitalism cannot be considered natural as the underlying capitalist theorem of continued economic growth can never in practice apply to every national economy, let alone individual.I just want to point out that capitalism isn't necessarily natural.
On a side note again: Theodore Roosevelt said after the victory over Spain, obtaining the Philippines as the spoils of war, that the United States is now practically a new empire. Although there was a drive into isolationism later WWII changed all that and American aid was also (besides bringing immense relief to the losers of the war) a vehicle to further their economic interests, which also at the same time spawned a renewed 'imperialist' American economic drive across the world.
Re: Was Marx right?
I agree 100%. I think it also points out that is much easier to critique a system, than fully develop one on your own. Human nature can corrupt any belief system.badboybubby wrote:yes and in that sense he was more a philosopher/prophet in the judeo-christian tradition and certainly influenced by it rather than an "economist" in today's sense...Rain Dog wrote:Marx's Communism -- was essentially about serving Humanity and serving each other ... a communal existence so to speak
i think we sometimes get bogged down in the merits of his writings as a social scientist that we miss the moral strength and imperative of his observations which as someone else pointed out have much merit today...
the fact that others have gone on to bastardise and corrupt these ideas is a separate issue...
Cheers,
RD
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
Re: Was Marx right?
JBTrain wrote:It's not a tricky question at all. Jesus self identified as a Jew. His disciples and the Romans viewed him as a Jew. "I am the Word" and a lot of the crazy shit portraying Jesus as outside the Jewish tradition comes from the book of John, written many generations after Jesus ' death with a clear anti-Jewish agenda not found in the earlier texts.Rain Dog wrote:I think this is a very tricky question actually. I guess he might be considered an "Ethnic" Jew although I find it dubious that anyone said to be of a "Virgin Birth" can really claim ethnicity. If he truly said "I am the Word" then that would be Heresy to Judaism right? Was this not one of the reasons the Jewish "Priests" worked to have him crucified?StroppyChops wrote:Correct - He died a fully practicing Jew, He didn't replace the Law, He completed it.JBTrain wrote:Certainly not. Separating Jesus from Judaism was the work of others long after his death.vladimir wrote:Thanks, guys, some good ideas.
@SC, yes, old Jeezer was a Jew, but he was the first Christian, yes?
It seems to me a "Heretic" may be a better description --- and I do not mean that in an unflattering way.
Cheers,
RD
The virgin birth, not that it matters to your point, isn't even mentioned in Paul, Mark, or John. Marketing.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4476301
It is tricky because it is dogma. You are putting your dogma into the argument. The vast majority of the world's 2 billion Christians have their own dogma and would disagree with you. I think many would take issue with your suggestion that the Book of John was "Anti-Semitic" as well.
I have no dog in this fight. FWIW my view of Jesus as a Brilliant Jewish heretic who paid the ultimate price for taking on the status quo is probably closer to yours than say those who believe in a trinity.
At the end of the day FACTS rather than Dogma about Jesus are hard to come by. To each his own when it comes to Dogma (as long as it does not harm others).
Your Huffington Post article is a fairly interesting read. but back when I was far more interested in these topics than I am now, I learned not to take any single perspective about a translation as somehow conclusive about anything. I have seen far too many pedantic debates on translations from people with varying agendas.
Cheers,
RD
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs;
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:56 pm
- Reputation: 54
Re: Was Marx right?
But you did see my qualifier? I stated 'at least not in number'. And then, isn't success if you have achieved a set goal or even surpassed it? Since spreading the gospel resulted in 2 billion followers, I believe it can be termed successful too.Rain Dog wrote: I certainly do not think that "Head Counting" can be considered an indicator of "Success or failure". If anything, it just shows that Christianity and Islam have historically been far more expansionist.
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:56 pm
- Reputation: 54
Re: Was Marx right?
The issue of Christianity doesn't really have anything to do with the question whether Marx was right, I believe, unless you want to assess or evaluate ethics derived from his works. Anyhow, whether Jesus was brilliant cannot be really judged now. After all, all the accounts of his life were written many years after his death. As you so correctly say 'FACTS' are hard to come by. There are even people who doubt his existence in the first place. But given that he did exist, wasn't he just someone who started a new 'church', just like many self-anointed pastors these days in the U. S.? He split from Judaism because he claimed (did he or was it his disciples?) that he was the Messiah who in Judaism belief is still to come to earth to redeem us ( us being the Jews) all. That was what Jews found heretic. In their eyes he was an impostor. The whole Christian belief is based on supernatural events and as such must be discounted by any logical thinker. Although the Old Testament contains enough supernatural events too and is equally illogical, Judaism has evolved into a more benign faith and certainly has not caused the misery and suffering as Christianity did. I am not talking about Israel, though. In my view it is also wrong to see Jews as an ethnic group as they are Semites as all Middle Eastern, in fact, Arab people are. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic definition, right?Rain Dog wrote:
FWIW my view of Jesus as a Brilliant Jewish heretic who paid the ultimate price for taking on the status quo is probably closer to yours than say those who believe in a trinity.
At the end of the day FACTS rather than Dogma about Jesus are hard to come by. To each his own when it comes to Dogma (as long as it does not harm others).
- vladimir
- The Pun-isher
- Posts: 6077
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 6:51 pm
- Reputation: 185
- Location: The Kremlin
Re: Was Marx right?
Well, Israel identifies itself as the Jewish state/ homeland, that is the reason for its existence. I think many agree that one cannot separate the Jewish faith from the state of Israel, certainly Nutter-nayu and his goons. Re benign, I don't think the 2200 dead in a month from the last genocide would agree that representatives of the faith are benign. The campaign is being waged as part of a holy war almost by the government, just as nutty as a jihad. But let's agree for the sake of argument. What about the massacres in the Old Testament 'God told them 'to annihilate whole towns? Doesn't sound benign to me. The OT is littered with examples of divinely-inspired violence, in many cases against children, women, even animals. Every religion has its shameful past/present, to pretend one is clean is naive.rubberbaron wrote:Judaism has evolved into a more benign faith and certainly has not caused the misery and suffering as Christianity did. I am not talking about Israel, though. In my view it is also wrong to see Jews as an ethnic group as they are Semites as all Middle Eastern, in fact, Arab people are. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic definition, right?
Re semites including Arabs, I agree, but Zionists have already appropriated that moniker exclusively for themselves, as JC (jacked camry) so almost-eloquently argued on another forum. Most Jews would refute that the term includes Arabs, the value of calling any critic of Israel an anti-semite as a last resort would be lost.
Anyway, perhaps we should get back to Marx.
Jesus loves you...Mexico is great, right?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bobby66, Google [Bot], Khmu Nation, Majestic-12 [Bot], Moe and 1325 guests