Studying business and accounting for 4 years then experiencing 22 years of labor in logistics and retail this quote converted me pretty quickly. "In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity - the epidemic of over-production." Currently 40% of food produced is thrown away. Overproduction devalues a commodity price below cost of production leading to bankruptcy and food is the most overproduced things. Overproduction, planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity and artificial consumption... capitalism is a mountain of contradictions.

Wow, I'm surprised that so many people who have never read Marx have such strong opinions about him.

False consciousness is everywhere. If you actually listened to all of this or read the book you would not be so ignorant about Marx's philosophy.

During the last 20 years, as we know, there has been a concentration of capital by the formation of trusts such as Marx in his boldest flights of imagination could never have dreamed of. Especially is this the case in the United States of America, where we get the best examples of these giant undertakings. According to the latest statistics, no less than 8,664 concerns which were formerly independent are now amalgamated in a few Trusts with a capital of 20,000 million dollars. Of these seven of the ‘greater’ industrial trusts contain 1,528 concerns formerly independent, and possess a capital of 2,663 million dollars. The six largest railway trusts are even better placed; they have a capital of 9,017 million dollars!

Someone wrote "socialism promises but Capitalism delivers," But Capitalism makes losers out of all but a few winners. Production should be according to social need, not private greed. Capitalism has a false promise built into it. You too can GET RICH!

People who know reality and in turn themselves are aware that Marx was a visionary who saw right through capitalism and it's inherent exploitative nature.

It ia impressive the amount of prejudices associated with the figure of Karl Marx. He had nothing to do with the comunist systems of the XXth century. His thought was appropriated by these systems. This is what Eagleton as a real reader of Marx has tried to show and it is not new!

You obviously don't know how difficult it is to get a loan, or the fact that 70% of all new businesses fail. Marxism is not state capitalism. Marxism is vehemently opposed to state capitalism. So you think lack of safety regulations helps the poor? That's the idiocy of Milton Friedman.

Marx was more realistic then people give him credit for.

" A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of Communism." first line of the Communist Manifesto (1848) Marx and Engels.

Very interesting, what people don't realise is that Marx saw man/woman as a creative force and the material progress that could be experience by the mechanisation of industry provided a chance for less labour and more time to explore creativity. Unfortunately, that old human flaw greed got in the way.

Oscar Wilde's vision of the future = brilliant ;-) Good comprehensive speech by Eagleton.

Marx is making a come back. Capitalism is finished.

what strikes me at quick glance is just how illogical the arguments for capitalism are vs what is offered by ones who seemingly lean towards socialist or communist theories; indeed even the ones that are for capitalism that are logical, all seem to wish for more constraints on how capitalism operates today which would lend it's self again to socialism. i'm not offering an argument here, just a observation.

a shame that we didnt get the discussion that went on after

Bravo Terry Eagleton! you clarify many ideas about Marx thoughts on capitalism; reforms and revolutions; proletarians; environment aspect of economy and Marxist theory . I think you have well explained the essence of Marxism; better than, may be the best economist in the world: in any case you attract my attention, to read your book for this summer holiday, when Capitalism will face its final challenge phase in its historical trends

I like how Eagleton had a go at Simon Cowell at 17:30. Ha ha

Great book by Terry Eagleton. Provides such an insight into the works of karl marx which I've gotten very into recently and have been a big influence on my own thinking

That's good in general, however think about what has to happen for those values to balance in the market. The market isn't like a pendulum. It's more like two pendulums tied with a rubber string trying to keep each out in equilibrium but never quite succeeding yet getting close at times. However without government influence on the stability of the system, the market will go from periods of profit to periods of extreme failure. At least the current system minimizes the boom and bust.

5:04: "one of the tragedies of the twentieth century ...socialism was most necessary where it was least possible...."; 8:43: "...the only image of the future is the failure of the present...."; 9:06: '...for Marx, eating a peach is production.... 10:30:...his ideal was leisure, not labor....".

What a great mind this man has. Very insightful.

How does one save and invest when all their income goes to living expenses?

I guess you are right ! Thanks. Getting the right word is luck for me.

Well that's interesting. Because that will also mean less money to buy the cheaper goods with. Thus where is the increased standard of living to come from? Not to mention that all commodities have different amounts of labor in them. They wouldn't all scale equally with a lowering of wages which further adds to the problem.

Eagleton is a genius, and he explains the genius of Marx lucidly and wittily, both in this talk and in the book. Just as he did for the potentially arid subject of literary theory in `Literary Theory: An Introduction`.

Great stuff!

You made heck of an assumption. Take for example food. People would produce it because it has value, that value being they need it too survive. Profit however would not necessarily mean they'd have an extra reason to produce food. If they produced too much food the market would decrease it's profitability (inflation). This gives the producer an incentive to produce less if not minimum to maintain profit rather then use. Profit is not a one way variable.

i want to see question period!!!

its interesting to hear how almost any notion the average educated contemporary individual would have in marx is actually an opposite to the truth. Especially the part where eagleton says marx was not necessarily in favor of violent revolution over peaceful reform. That's so incredibly contrary to what we are taught about him that i'm still doubtful about that point

fascinating, thank you

I think he's referring to social darwinism. The term ascribed to people who advocate competative social system, these people often over-estimate how meritocratic our current system is and I believe the reference to George Bush was intended to refute the idea that it is meritocratic.

1.) perhaps you could be more specific, as my understanding of that debate is that its still undecided even among capitalists. 2.) I don't see how this is an issue nor how it contradicts his theories. Marx was well aware of how the progress in society was dramatically effecting the scales of production. Cheap goods is by no means a counter to his theory. Perhaps you should be more specific.

What I love most about Marx is his writing? Incredible mastery of the language, literary genius. We in the present stand on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Marx. We know nothing of the depth of his thought and writings. He championed capitalism as he saw it a stepping stone to communist society, whether it is a necessary step is the drama of human history? I was also impressed to learn and had verified that the earliest document that is socialist in nature was the Celtic Book of Laws 15th century. People like you and I have the benefit of access to the real documents digitized in virtual libraries of the major libraries in the world through the Internet is how i find stuff to study and learn.

It's hard to believe but actually quite funny that there are still people in the world who still take Marx seriously.

I'd just like to mention to you this book I've written. As always...says it all. The bougeiousie feasts itself on it"s own regurgitated verbiage...

LASTLY... no one forced you to take those loans. And if it makes you feel any better, the interest the government makes off your loan payments, (which were legislated into existence by the political left in the first place), makes it possible for it to not cut spending and allows us to avoid austerity. Nothing is for free. Once you're done trying to read Das Kapital maybe you'll learn that.

So "Marx Was Right" was he? Well, everyone is bound to be "right" about a few things once in a while. But when you supposedly create theories about economics and you get something so basic as the theory of value so absolutely wrong that it's laughable, then there's not much to account for you being "right" overall in your general conclusions. Marx was so fundamentally wrong about the value of goods, the potential for abundance, and just basic human nature that he's merely a relic of history.

He makes only justice to the true humanist thinker who was Marx.

One of the most fundamental question neglected in any suave speech on Marx is how actually money is generated _ a topic with which Simmel deals more profusely in The phiosophy of money . The point is also think about what happens within college and universities where teaching posts are few and most students resort to some kind of 'sexual labour' to make money . Its truth which academia can never address and be comfortable with . All great literatry or marxist theory boils down to basics . Bodies trade for money, money trades for wares and people are much like in the position of commodities . Do professors benefit from this ? :)

Capitalists don't have to make consumers happy, they have to increase their profits. These do not necessarily overlap: for instance, marketing forms roughly 9% of the GDP, creating misinformed consumers. Under roughly free market principles (ignoring Catallaxy and encomia to Somalia) there is a left skew away from a Pareto distribution as compared to the right skew the economist actually ignored in his data - lowering purchase power for the poorest.

Marx loved Mozart (step over the millions of dead bodies via socialism and communism) and was on the side of the worker (forget the Gulags & killing fields) but was right about capitalism (despite the fact poor people in Capitalist nations are the wealthiest people in the world).

Socialism/Communism promises, Capitalism delivers... need I say more

I don't think he's quite right on how listening to Mozart is productive labour. Marx writes "Productive labour, therefore, is labour which - in the system of capitalist production - produces surplus value for its employer or which converts the objective conditions of labour into capital, and their owners into capitalists, hence, labour which produces its own product as capital" - though he does also write that every act of consumption is an act of production, stimulating future supply.

Well , there is a lot of missunderstandings in your arguments. Profit is not value and value is social abstraction - not money. Marx talks about profit also , but it would be a great missunderstanding to link this to value in any other way then the fact that value is the fundation of profit. Profit will always float and also over time establish itself on a level regardless of its origin. It will seem like profit live its own life and has been created in the prices.

I imagine he/she meant 'become'.

Terry Eagleton is a fine literary essayist, no doubt about it, making his best in convincing the audience no less than himself how cool Marx's marxism´really was. However is obvious he lacks any training in economics whatsoever. That’s why he takes for granted that an overarching holistic approach in dealing with economic processes is the best thing in town. It is a clumsy way to do it. A botanist does not need a whole grandiose conception of life in conducting her trade, nor an engineer on how the cosmos works. Holism is metaphysical quasi theological assumption, a child in this case of the first half XIX century German monumental philosophy. In economics you do not understand macro processes if you lack an understanding of microeconomics ones, not the other way round. The holistic approach has, besides, empirical consequences: to discard off hand the value of piecemeal cumulative changes in improving a society. A thing that Marx, notwithstanding what Eagleton says, regarded at best as a mere tactical value in pursuing the transformation of a society in its totality if not dismissed as palliatives when not considered outright illusory, being this more often than not how Marx considered both civil and political liberties and their institutions. When a political agenda is drawn from such an holistic view consequences are unavoidable: a violent maximalist disruption and distortion of all layers of human interaction, so no corner of social life is left untouched with a cascade of unintended effects. The historical totalitarian consequences of Marxism in the XX century were not merely bad luck or something to blame on what was implemented in backward countries with an authoritarian political culture: it was embedded as well on how the theory approaches social reality. These attempts to save Marxism from its real historical consequences are self-contradictory in a theory that idolizes historical verdict. To sever the connection between theory and its empirical consequences is to fall back to an endless cycle of speculative reinterpretations on what Marx meant and intended: same thing with horoscopes if things didn’t work out as enunciated. Reinterpretation on the face of facts is typical of pseudoscience as Karl Popper Pointed out. Pseudo sciences are unfalsifiable because it is like playing poker with a gambler that has an infinite number of cards under his sleeve; each one a new reinterpretation so never to lose. Eagleton also needs to be persuasive in Marxist terms on why Marxist ideas had such a huge impact despite its materialist tenets. To concede that ideas are present in the very texture of historical facts demands a non-Marxist approach. In other words, Marxist theory has problems in explaining its own success in terms of influence and stubborn endurance till now. Marxism phenomena and why is so seductive amongst intellectuals attests to its incompleteness. And finally, Marxism is also a self-contradictory theory in the extend it aims to draw the trajectory of the future of social change in one hand and in the other insisting that the state of the art of science and technology (“the development of the productive forces” using its terminology) is at the core of this trajectory. One thing cancels the other because unless the social theorist could foretell the future of inventions and their consequences even before they are either discovered or invented you cannot say anything on the possible future affairs of the world. Scientific-Technological change makes the future more uncertain, not less. Marxism cannot have both ways (a vision of the future compatible with an affirmation on what drives it). That’s the central paradox of Marxist historicism or the so-called Popper-Taleb paradox. Summing up If Marxism failed in a such embarrassing scale as no other modern political philosophy never has and if it did with tragic consequences to this day is because the grandiose theory always has been the wrong, awkward tool in addressing human affairs in a way attainable to both social practices and social change; and approach with serious blind spots in understanding the true nature of power and also what makes a given economy deliver or not. But above all there is no historical innocence anymore. We know better now once Marxism has been tested by History and cannot remain in such a denial.

So interesting that the imagery of Marxs ideal system is almost the antithesis of what we have always considered communistic life to be...i.e dull,grey,austere, grim and souless

LTV, regardless of whether it's correct or not, is just one element of one facet (political economy) of Marx's wide-ranging work - not completely unimportant, but not exactly the binding glue of his entire oeuvre. So-called "economists" completely misread Marx by trying to make him into an economist - but he was a social theorist, centrally occupied with the dynamic social structurations of societies. That puts him basically at odds with econ as a discipline, especially of your favored type.

No that wasn't my point at all. My point was that your 'profit' has negative as well as positive characteristics. As for technology yes that's how that work. Capitalism works. However it's flaws continue to undermine progress. What's profitable is not necessarily good. Tell me this. How far can technology progress until it's benefits undermine capitalism (ie robotics)?

For last time , he wasnt right , he was left

Commercial banks create money and decide who gets it. It's not the poor with business ideas and no capital.

3 Weeks later and not a single challenge??

All societies that don't interfere with interest rates are Capitalist societies, from hunter gatherer societies up to the present day, and in the present day we are witness to the economic sabotage central banks cause with policies that promote ludicrously low interest rates, thereby retarding capital formation that would be used for new business ventures. The deleterious effects of low interest rates are apparent to those who rely on interest payment dividends from a Certificate of Deposit to supplement a major proportion of every day living expenses. As the interest rate declines on longer maturing CDs to abysmally low levels, many are forced out of CDs because the dividend of the longer maturing CD is no longer covering the living expenses it once did, and consumers need the principal now. Others transfer to shorter maturity CDs, just in case the principal is needed. This results in less capital available for business projects that require relatively longer time periods to begin to pay back loans. To illustrate the difference between productivity increases that net (new) capital formation accomplishes and consumption-based investments (old investments that are currently selling consumption goods), let's take a look at two hunter gatherer tribes that live near to each other, then we'll take a look at what happens when a central bank intervenes by artificially lowering interest rates... Tribe A saved more by looking for food less, placing that saved time into creating a net that would increase the catch of fish. We can say that Tribe A has a greater productive edge than does Tribe B, whose members are still using sharpened sticks to catch fish--very laborious and relatively unproductive. Now Tribe A decides, due to its higher productivity/wealth, it can afford to save more time, adding this saved time to the saved time it used for making fishing nets, and build a boat that will allow their nets to catch even more fish. Being busy building boats, Tribe A teaches Tribe B to build the nets--a less productive venture than the new boat-building venture is. Now imagine that a central bank enters the picture, and instructs Tribe B to construct less productive (less needed) tables and chairs instead of the critically needed and more productive fishing nets. Well, not only has Tribe B wasted precious time, it's now starving along with Tribe A. A table and chairs are consumption-based wasteful goods, while a fishing net and boat are a critical investment in the future greater abundance in food. Is the picture clearer now? You see, in the modern economy the money we save is the "saved time" that Tribe A used to construct nets/boats, but since interest is being intentionally kept low by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, there can be no new capital formation (money that's used for new long-term productive investments) in Western economies (nor Japan) for new productive ventures, because the lure for such new investments--the higher rate of return that higher, market-based, interest rates offer--is non-existent. As such then we see that Capitalism exited during the hunter-gatherer era, and witness the negative effect on that era's economic development should a central bank come into existence that lowered our hunter-gatherers' interest rates by artificially lowering the amount of "saved time" used for new productive enterprises. When Marx deduced the Law of Value he forgot that Laws must explain phenomena for all eras, not just the narrowly defined age that Marx believed is the Capitalist era. The Law of Value doesn't only exist in Marx's arbitrarily defined Capitalist era, but for all eras of human existence. For more on this subject, read my articles "The Poverty of Karl Marx's Dialectical Materialism" sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/the-poverty-of-karl-marx-s-dialectical-materialism ...and... "Capitalism Needs Higher, Market Based, Interest Rates; Mercantilism Needs Government Sanctioned Low Interest Rates" sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/capitalism-needs-higher-market-based-interest-rates-mercantilism-needs-government-sanctioned-low-interest-rates Then for the explanation why the West's central banks are sabotaging their respective economies with capital formation retarding low interest rates policies, read my article, "The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation" sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/the-marxist-co-option-of-history-and-the-use-of-the-scissors-strategy-to-manipulate-history-towards-the-goal-of-marxist-liberation

He says Marx’s was not arguing in favour of equality but in the communist manifesto he does advocate a highly progressive form of taxation.

Did this guy just say that Marx was reformist?

I reckon anything attached to Marx should be held to the same scrutiny assigned to oh, let's say Christianity. A smattering of Christian guilt and the whole colossus is demolished. How much more so is Marx culpable.

"How is it that as we speak that those in Greece are rummaging through garbage cans" Probably because they thought that good can come from through compulsion. The same reason in the age of religious dominance most lived in abject poverty. The use of force helps one group; those who control the force.

although eagleton failed in south africa he should be given credit

has anyone ever made the comparison between Muhammad and Marx? two guys who had grand visions of paradise on earth if only people would listen to him. their followers praise the ideology and elevate the man as a prophet chosen by god or history to change the world for the better.

no creeping Communism or anything...at least, unlike most academics, you are open about it...

In my experience people who are quickest to dismiss Marx are the ones least likely to have ever actually read anything by him.

so he wasn't left?

If it's a worthless degree, show me all the people with these degrees that ended up in homeless shelters.

13:12

People love trifles like football, video games, Music, movies, etc., and these kinds of things should be marketed in the most libertarian way possible with the minimum taxation and state restrictions; now housing, basic food, medicine and education BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. To say that every human being has the right to life, without giving the BASIC RESOURCES FOR SURVIVAL as a universal right is pure demagoguery. Or are you in favor of life or you are in favour of capitalism, impossible to be both.

I was reading before I entered preschool and pegged as a genius when I entered kindergarten. The last wave of standardized tests I took (10th grade) put me in the 98th percentile for cognitive skills, 97 percent and above in all language arts areas, 86 percent in mathematical concepts, and 74% in math computation. My SAT scores were 620 verbal and 490 math. No intelligent person would claim that I should be a field laborer.

I read (listened to an audio book) the communist manifesto a few days ago, the first part is sublime. Everything is true, nothing invented nor biased. You can feel the honesty and passion behind every word chosen. The best part? I ALREADY KNEW what Marx was going to say, all he did was confirm my ideas. That to me, proves 100 % that ''Marxism'' (or communism, economic justice, call it whatever you want), is eternally true and just. No one can ever justify that somehow one person deserves more money then he knows what to do with, while millions starve.

@15:40 I take issue with "business ethics is an oxymoron". That is only true for people who are so opposed (or unsuccessful themselves) to successful business owners that they don't even stop to analyze whether their success is legitimate and non-coercive. I have heard Marxists argue in the past that "all workers are exploited". I' m not sure if that statement is correct or not, but for me, that is like saying all carnivores are murderers. Marx was not anti-capitalist, but terry obviously is.

Capitalism is a named coined by Karl Marx, over 200 years ago, to describe the, horrific by today's standards, factories and sweatshops of the day. Marx made a living from these folks, donated to him by factory owner/friend Freddy Engels, yet Marx coined the word capitalism to describe those workplace/market dynamics, but took the money. Marx, from a very wealthy family, didn't ever practice law, his PhD. Instead, as a violent thug, he was banned from Europe and lived in London, all his life. Marx was sure that the working poor would rise up and make a revolution, because he didn't know that these folk were happy to have work and had come from far worse and starvation conditions, on the farm. His predictive 1848 Communist Manifesto with its 12 points, failed to come near to reality. Most of Marx's economic ideas were plagiarised from great economic pioneers Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Marx sincerely thought he had the answer to the world's problems, but his handling of his only employee, the maid, whom he made pregnant, says it all.

In other words: You got not one, but TWO worthless degrees (and took on $58,000 in student loans), and expect for the government to impoverish productive people and force them to LABOR FOR YOU to be paid to write shit no one wants to read. I could quit my job producing machinery that FEEDS people and start writing poetry, but I decide to CONTRIBUTE to my society.

Understanding MARX makes mankind becoming humans. (Could a native speaker translate this please into proper English? - or did I have luck in formulating this ? :-)

I knew it wouldn't take long !! At around 5min.30secs he says that Marx recognises the poverty and deprivation capitalism has caused. That is absolutely nonsense, its only through capitalism that we now live in a world with the least amount of global poverty human history has ever known. The wealth that capitalism has brought has given us a world where life expectancy has risen from around 38yrs of age in 1800 to around 80yrs of age now . Marx spent most of his life in London poncing off his mate Freidrich Engels who himself lived off his inherited wealth . As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and just like socialism it has never worked and will never work. As Margerat Thatcher once said " socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money "

I don’t understand why those who are listening and present are laughing , is this lecture on Marxism is stand up comedy , or they think they know better and have condescending attitudes towards common people

He was not right he was defiantly left

Bunk.

To dopiero winno być testowane na szczurach,

it was last exist before bridge, now i wonder end is going to be ww3 or global warming? 🤔🤔

Easily done,simply stop the poor from breeding. The fewer mouths the bigger the meal.

Not quite. I'm not expecting to be "persuasive" in 2 sentences. But I AM mentioning 2 specific areas in which Marx "sucks." (1) his "labor" theory of value; and (2) his failure to anticipate the potential for producing cheap abundance that is available to "the masses" on a scale that couldn't be imagined in the 1800's. If you'd care to defend this ridiculous "labor" theory of value, ww w. marxist. com/marx-marxist-labour-theory-value. htm I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say.

Capitalism is totally shameful. I have a B.A. in English and communication, an M.A. in film and media, a 3.48 GPA, and I live in a homeless shelter because I am medically limited to a desk job. I have written a novel, three stage plays, five screenplays, and various shorter works, and I have been blogging about my homeless experience and been an activist with Occupy and Picture the Homeless. I have $58,000 in student loan debt. We need to implement Marxism ASAP.

There's no such thing as a darwinist. If you mean people who accept the theory of evolution, they are called bioligists. And that subject has nothing at all to do with Bush. You need to ask a politician.

Why marx is wrong on the death of philosophy, the very fact that we are discussing his philosophy on that is a philosophy, so in reality she killed Karl Marx she has had influence and still has influence in the the world if you use scolastic philosophers and other religious philosophers such as Confucius as refrences. lady philosophy is still alive because of the idea of continental philosophy, lady philosophy was not happy when self righteous Karl called her a dead woman.

I just can't pay attention

Capitalism has always functioned this way. Corporate fascism is only the natural extreme of capitalism, which seeks to subordinate the working masses to the will of a tiny ruling class for profit.

Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Venezuela etc etc all destroyed by his ideas 😰

Folder of Time ƒ

Austerity is simply punishing the poor for the crimes of the rich and cannot be supported by any ethical person.

To advocate capitalism is to assume responsibility for the outcomes of your life. "Externalities" are mere excuses for all those that want to avoid such responsibility. Many hard working citizens have gone from rugs to riches by tackling their inner problems namely the subsequent misery from attributing everything to external factors is a major hurdle in the course of psychological maturing of the individual. Communists are predominantly lazy, irresponsible human beings (young individuals tend to be so) that were led by an equally lazy irresponsible human being by the name of Karl Marx. Just looking into his life is enough to distill that he's no good. Especially when it comes to moral advocations and the "common good" (who knows what is "common good" anyway? How do one defines the term?). For crying out loud the man lost 4 of 7 of his children from neglect, fathered a son with his maid (who he never paid as a worker) and never recognised it, never paid his dues from receiving goods and services that sustained him, never returned borrowed money (at some point he was forced by his loaners to sell the beds in his house to pay them back - at the time he was receiving a substantial yearly amount - yet he was incapable to manage his economics, a failure in every aspect). I give it to him he was quite photogenic just like the butcher Che Guevara - one could say "their only real success in life".

Of course it doesn't, but it does.

is he in a dorm room?

This is extremely superficial, I was disappointed. Pace Eagleton, Marx is utterly utopian in that he posits an inevitable future communism that he claims will be possible due to a future economic superabundance; but he does not explain how superabundance will be produced or how that alleged future society will work and what its economics will be. He does't have a theory of socialism or communism that goes beyond a vague wishful optimism. The idea of superabundance is utopian, and as is the idea that there will be a "world revolution" brought about by "objective laws of history," as well as the idea that you can have an efficient communist economics under which the workers own the means of production.

Marx was right all people should be poorly equal and live in gulags and work for state as slave

Karl Marx was LEFT😒

No, Karl Marx was left.

Then please head over to Venezuela as an average person and live there. Since 1988 Venezuela has plummeted very low. Secondly Marx butchered Hegel. Thirdly Marx made mistakes on Capitalism. Fourth suggest to check Ayn Rand on Capitalism. Lastly Capi like the word Capo means boss but also head in Latin, as a human being you have sovereignty as Boss/Head of finances rather than someone coming into your life and deciding now they own your wealth. If you still enjoy communism please place your ban details for all of us to use. Sharing means caring for the wolves in sheep clothes.

Marx should have gone to Art School

lol raaandom!

I know for a fact that Marx read Roussea's Social Contract and his other one about "The Origins of inequality among men". Marx would also know, that in ch 9 of the Social Contract Rousseau clearly declares that those who have previously agreed with it, but who now disagree..should be given the death penalty! That was the ideology behind Robispierre's mass murder of Priests and supposed Aristocrats but ended up being his closest allies and friends... until they tweaked to the "Next it will be me" idea and disposed of him. Unfortunately for mankind....the problem is not..NOT 'the system'..... our problem with inequality and injustice is ourselves.. our greed, our lust, our passion for power and control.. you know..like a Male lion! "Biff Punch Scratch Bite" ... I WANT THOSE FEMALES..then you kill the offspring of the lionesses.. impregnate them and continue through life expanding your gene pool...and if you do not believe in a Created world, no matter how much you will deny it...'that' is where you are philosophically and politically left...and perhaps I should say "Left".... The Political Left is like a Mormon or Jehovah's witness..they really DO believe they have the absolute truth.... THE truth... but.. the Left is left languishing in the quicksand of wishful thinking and fantasy by reality. You see... all you deluded atheists, marxists, socialists, anarchists... by your view it's all about 'genes' whether you admit it or not. You see.. the science is clear...even if your oxytocin and vassopressin challenged minds are not.

A dream world where nobody works and everybody prospers. If Marx lived today he'd see life is way better for everyone. Let's remember we're listening to a literary critic rather than an economist.

wow....this is the biggest pile of B.S. I've heard since reading Marx. Yeah, he wasn't an egalitarian, he was an elitist--this guys literally says this as if it's a good thing. This is the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time