• Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In his book, he charts the course of human history and tries to predict where it will end up. He comes to the conclusion that a violent revolution will soon come to pass as the workers overthrow their bosses and start sharing resources.

      “Soon come to pass” was 150 years ago, the Revolution hasn’t happened. Marxist scholars since then have been recreating the letters between early Christians asking why He hadn’t returned yet as promised and pushing the date of the Second Coming back.

      In my opinion, Marx wrote his conclusion first, then cherry picked the points in history that supported his conclusion.

      • culprit@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There hasn’t been any anti-capitalist revolutions in the last 150 year.

        Maybe read a history book?

        I seems to recall the US losing a war to communists in the 1970s for instance.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          any

          I don’t think their point was that no revolution has happened but the revolution to change it all didn’t happen like he assumed

          • culprit@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Marx didn’t consider capitalists holding the world hostage with nuclear weapons

            plenty of successful revolutions did occur though, just not in places under the control of the ‘west’

            very chauvinistic view to hold IMO

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean the world revolution was already sorta stopped before nukes came into play. Maybe next time though, never say never

        • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US lost a war to Vietnamese nationalists that adopted the trappings of Communism in order to get materiel support from China. They rejected it, and China, as soon as possible

              • culprit@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                the Revolution hasn’t happened

                conclusion first, then cherry picked the points in history that supported his conclusion

                you hear those self-aware wolves howling?

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In my opinion, Marx wrote his conclusion first, then cherry picked the points in history that supported his conclusion.

        I can’t fathom the arrogance of people who say “Marx just didn’t think of x, y or z”. He invariably did, and a quote is easily found to prove them wrong. Yet they continue to say this bollocks. “Marx didn’t consider human nature, Marx didn’t know about x obscure economic theory,” on and on until the cows come home. Capital has 3 volumes, and each is thick and heavy enough to make a decent murder weapon. They are so long precisely because he did do the thinking you accuse him of not doing.

        The one single thing we can legitimately say he didn’t anticipate was the computer revolution, and it in fact only strengthens his theories, as digital technology has gone on to strengthen the hold of capital, and laid bare its incestuous relationship with the State.

        • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing you said rebutted the section of my comment you quoted, you just started fighting strawmen

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t try and lie so blatantly. I directly responded to your implication that Marx just wasn’t thinking about things clearly.

            • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              In my opinion, Marx wrote his conclusion first, then cherry picked the points in history that supported his conclusion.

              Nothing in that implies what you’re accusing me of

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh, get fucked if you’re gonna try the pedantic game. Go ahead and tell me how I got it wrong and what you really meant if you’re gonna try this sleazy tactic. Otherwise, stfu with your bollocks.

                • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh ok, what I really meant was:

                  In my opinion, Marx wrote his conclusion first, then cherry picked the points in history that supported his conclusion.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Marx made mistakes though. For example, he assumed that the right of appropriating the whole product of a firm and control rights to direct the workers in the firm were attached to the ownership of capital. In reality, capital can be rented out just as labor can be hired. It is really the employer-employee contract that is at the core of capitalist appropriation. Ownership of capital just increases bargaining power to get favorable contract terms such as the employer contractual role

            • J Lou@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Marx thought that control rights over the firm were attached to ownership of capital rather than being logically separately acquired in the employer-employee relationship.

              “It is not because he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital, just as in feudal times the functions of general and judge were attributes of landed property.” – Marx