Karl-Marx-Allee | The GDR Objectified
Karl Marx’s theory of Alienation: A Critique | sidvents
"" What sounds better to you? Being to work, or being to work? Choosing an employer based on pay and benefits, or being forcibly conscripted into an "industrial army?" The phrase "obligation to work" sounds better than "being forced to work by threat of punishment", but without the possibility of positive incentive, it means the same thing. Marx would take away your freedom to choose not to work. Suppose you decide that you would rather move to a small cabin up north, live largely off the land, and do just a little bit of occasional work for spending money? In a capitalist society, you would be forced to adopt an austere lifestyle, but no one would stop you. But Karl Marx would accuse you of not pulling your weight, and you would be to go work the same way as everyone else.
SparkNotes: Karl Marx (1818–1883): Context
Karl Marx1 wrote a devotional commentary on abiding in Christ that was based upon the fifteenth Chapter of John’s Gospel. He wrote it on August 17, 1835 when he was seventeen years old. At that time, he was attending the Trier Gymnasium and fulfilling the Gymnasium’s religious graduation requirement. What makes this devotional commentary so significant is its stark contrast to his fame and later writings.
Glossary of People: Ma - Marxists Internet Archive
"" In an industrialized world, no one will be paid more than the bare minimum required to keep us alive? In the industrialized world (as opposed to his sterile imaginary world), if you have a skill which is in demand, then you can command a higher salary for your services. Conversely, if you have a skill which is ridiculously commonplace (eg. if your resume lists "literate in the English language" as your only job skill), then you will get paid a pathetic wage. I can't believe people still think of Karl Marx as some sort of genius when he obviously didn't even understand the principles of supply and demand.
The Ugly Truth Of Leftist “Heroes” – Return Of Kings
"" Ludicrous fantasy. An entire social class seize power. Instead, it can only appoint to take that power. No matter what flowery language Karl Marx chooses to use, the simple reality is that government power will be in the hands of the few, regardless of whether that government is communist or capitalist. The only question is how much power we want that government to have, and Marx made the mistake of assuming that the more power the government had, the more power the masses would have. This is a very serious "have your cake and eat it too" fallacy; you cannot simultaneously give more power to the masses to the government! Marx felt that free markets are undemocratic and unfair, but in reality, free markets are actually democratic than governments, communist or otherwise. They actually to the whims of the masses, while governments only make promises. Look at Wal-Mart; its profits that of every rich person's boutique and specialty store in America. Now look at your federal capital: is there any venue there where your average Wal-Mart customer would be taken seriously?