Karl Marx: did he get it right?

Did Karl Marx get it right? That's the poser in today's paper. The Prussian has recently been ignored by the mainstream - consigned to obscure curricula as the business world steamed ahead. But as markets plummeted last week, dog-eared copies of Das Kapital started to fly off the shelves.

Comment Central wants to know your thoughts. Can you hear an 'I told you so' reverberating from Highgate Cemetery? Or are you still using the work of its most famous resident to prop up your television?

Cast your vote here.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Comments

[ScotlandFriend]

Judging from the complete and total failure of the Soviet model, and the unbelievable torment suffered under the eventual Stalinist reign of Russia, I would say a clear "no", Marx got it all wrong.

Richard Marx, on the other hand, wrote some great music in the 1980's.

[Letters From A Tory]

Of course Karl Marx didn't get it right - the mere suggestion makes me feel dirty reading your blog!

[Simon Stephenson]

I wonder at the significance of including the word "all" in the title to this piece, and its exclusion from the actual question posed?

Could it not be the case that the title will mislead SOME people into thinking that they are being asked whether or not they are signed-up devotees of Marxist thought. As opposed to what I think the question is ACTUALLY asking: are Marx's explanations sufficiently robust to warrant a place in contemporary discussions?

I'd expect the "No" vote in your poll to be greater than it would have been if the word "all" had not been included in the title.

[Eddy Verhaeghe]

As long as we don't know what he is supposed to have got right, this question cannot be answered.

[starling]

Hang on, Scotlandfriend, The Sovjet Union etc. weren't really based on Marx's ideas, even though they claim them to be.

Marx had lots of good points, but nobody ever followed them up.

[Tikhon Savrasov]

41% vote yes?!?

So much for teh "wisdom of the crowds"...

[Matthew]

For a fairly right wing newspaper, quite alot of people think marx was right.
Soviet Russia failed for lots of reasons. Some people also argue that it wasn't a true marxist state.
I think that Marx had some valuble points that are still true to this day but on some points he was completly wrong.

[Andrew Brown]

I suspect the 100 million victims of Marxist regimes in the twentieth century would probably say no.

[Terry Francis]

You cannot possibly disregard Marx's ideas on the basis of the Soviet model, the Soviets tried to intiate the Marxist ideas on a failing country with a failing economy, his ideas have never been tried on a fully developed country of any great significance, and one which has the economic strength to support the system

[Matt]

Scotlandfriend - that fact that you twin Marxism with the Maxist/Lennist communism seen in the Soviet union shows a truly wonderful and ignorant misundstanding of both Marxim and the Soviet experiment. Judging from your comment I suggest you read some Marx.

[Chris]

How many NO voters actually know what Marx said? With the amount of Capitalist propaganda thrown around in the West (see Hollywood) I'm not surprised.
You can't say that Socialism will never work because Stalin got it wrong. He was a dictator, like Hitler of the far right, Musolini, Saddam... ...
So has the rest of the Capitalist world got it right? Maybe if you live in the UK and a handful of other rich countries, and can afford to read the times!
What about the overwelming majority of the world that can't feed themselves, ask them what they think of Capitalism.

[Claire]

It's unfair to judge Karl Marx's theory purely based on the old Soviet Union or even China.
People should read more about his books before judge him.

[Bel London]

Let us be honest. Of course, the Marxist model is ideal. I agree that there has never been a true representation of a Marxists state, Stalinism was far from it - corrupt, violent and unfair. However, not until the whole world is far unhinged from Capitalism and corruption, will it ever work.

[Robert Dammers]

I'm wrestling with Chris's (21/10 12:15) punctuation. Do you mean that Stalin, like Hitler, was of the right? Or do you mean to contrast Stalin and Hitler as being respectively of the left and right? Or do we acknowledge that Hitler, and particularly Mussolini, considered themselves to be socialists (and economically, were so)? Because I don't recall either of them being particularly strong on individual liberty, and free markets. Or are we allowed to conflate "Right" with "Nasty" and "Left" with "Cuddly, even when muddleheaded"? Perhaps we can find some new words, with real meanings?

In terms of providing a scientific theory, with real predictive value, Marx needs to be discarded, like Freud.

[Simon Stephenson]

I see that the word "all" has now been removed from the title to this piece. Thanks.

Now, perhaps, you'ld consider including "partially" to your answer possibilities, so as to complement the choice between "yes" and "no".

The Times doesn't really view such considerations as being a stark choice between two absolutes, does it?

[John Baldacchino]

Marx was, like Adam Smith -- whom he read and cited profusely -- a man of the 19th century. His analysis of capital and the way it worked (and did not) were apt. Marx was not a prophet. Also he was not a Marxist. It is interesting to see the Chinese Premier recently citing Adam Smith's work on ethics on CNN, while many Wall Street commentators are now citing Marx. Maybe finally we can stop reading history anachronistically and assess Marx for what he really was -- a 19th century philosopher and political economist.

[David]

Blaming the "100 million" victims of "Marxism" on Marx is comparable to blaming the "100 million" victims of Christianity and Islam on Jesus and Mohammed.

Blame the humans distorting and abusing the philosophies, not the philosophers.

[Victor]

Marx got it wrong for one simple reason. He didn't take into account the human factor in his theories. A lot of Communism is based on trusting certain people to administer the system correctly. The Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc demonstrate what happens when individuals in the position of trust don't administer the system correctly. And push their own agendas instead, but still claim it to be Marxism (although when you have an Army to back it up, no one dares disagree).

Religion may well be the opium of the people, but Communism is its crack cocaine.

[Mr Ole C G Olesen]

NO ! .. He didnt get it right..

BUT ! He did get right ... that BIG CAPITAL are unscrupulous and greedy ... just like the rest of US ... but have too much leverage ... to pursuit that GREED
on the expense ... of everyone .. except themselves .

What he didnt get right .. IS ... that ... the SYSTEM ... he wanted to replace the CAPITALISTS with ... are EXACTELY THE SAME ... and GIVEN THE POWER ... will attempt UNSCRUPLOUSLY AND GREEDY ... to enrich themselves on the expense ... of everyone ... except themselves ....

KEY ISSUES in this dilemma are :

MORAL ... as written in every human heart
LAW ... beyond the whims of power
FREEDOM ... without stealing freedom from others
OBLIGATION ... toward society and those dependant on You
COMPASSION ... for Your fellow being
PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY regardless of position

[Giles]

Socialism is comparable to Fascism because both regimes are based on philosophies which are supposedly unshakeable truths. Both are very explicit in their definitions of humanity and the governance of humanity. Both are highly influenced by Marx (socialism) and Nietzsche (Fascism). Both are equally useless when it comes to their application. Marx and Nietzsche were more concerned about looking clever and leaving a legacy than persuing truth. Whereas democracy is based around the persuit of real truth and the desire to improve society, as exemplified by the philosophy of Plato/Socrates and Aristotle. Not a single prediction by Marx has been fulfilled nor will it ever be fulfilled because it is a lie. Whereas Plato' inquires have revealed truths still applicable today. Marx got it totally, utterly and undeniably wrong.

[Peter]

Did he get it right?
All in his mind maybe and certainly no more than Brian Clough!

[JC]

Marxist ideology is a great concept to follow, however due to the human state of nature, the exact representation of Marxism will never be achieved due to greed and self interest.
However, people should not compare the soviet style 'communism' with Marx as this is not a genuine representation but a followed ideology that supplemented the rise of a brutal dictator, Stalin.
In this day and age, a more realistic ideology that may be followed would be socialism even though Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism would equal socialism and then generate into communism.
In spite of this prediction, we are still far away from being able to say that Marx was right, and that the collapse of free market capitalism was inevitable.

[Matt]

Be careful to distinguish between Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism, all of which are branches of Marxism.

Leninism died with Lenin.

Stalinism is what failed in the Soviet Union. And it was more State Capiatlism than true socialism anyway.

Trotskyism lives on - the founding father of Neoconservatism is Irving Kristol, and his son, Bill, founded the Project for the New American Century, which basically created the doctrine of Bush, Jr's administration.

What I conclude is that whilst capitalism is getting a kicking at the moment, it's actually a failure to form a real market. If the world of credit derivatives was listed on exchanges and subprime mortgages had been sold through brokers who had a stake in the mortgage's outcome, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

Just because subprime went wrong, doesn't mean Marx was right. It's possible for both our present imperfect market system AND Marx to be wrong.

[Gavin T.]

I am pretty sure that Marx didn't get it right, but leaning towards a more socialist society is not a bad thing. If you look deep inside yourself don't you feel that we have the resources to make global hunger and poverty a thing of the past. We are capable of huge technological advances and we spend incredible amounts of money doing stupid things. The word needs a moral and ethical facelift, then we could consider showing some "humanity" and compassion towards our other global citizens.

[Nikolay]

I voted yes, because his ideas helped Russia to become a superpower of the XX cent. Only technological developments made it necessary for the USSR to try to reform the economy and social relations, and the country failed in the process due to poor leadership. But ideas of Marx were valuable for no less than a century!

[Chris]

Re: Robert Dammers | 21 Oct 2008 12:31:11
I'll make it a bit more clear for you as you seem to be struggling a bit.
1) He (Stalin) was a dictator, like Hitler ... ...
That's it! Surely you can understand that?!
2) Hitler was of the far right.
Do you disagree with that?
Woohoo! Again, that's it! No mention of “Cuddly” or “Nasty”, not even "Right"!

Please don't read more into comments to suit your opinions.

"In terms of providing a scientific theory, with real predictive value, Marx needs to be discarded, like Freud." If you say so, I don't need any of your arguments, that's enough to persuade me.

[matthew]

"I suspect the 100 million victims of Marxist regimes in the twentieth century would probably say no."

Posted by: Andrew Brown | 21 Oct 2008 12:10:10

There were no 20th century Marxist regimes. There were 20th century state-capitalism regimes that pretended to be Marxist but they never were that.

Marx' basic theory that people getting rich or staying rich - without doing anything other than taxing the people who work and produce - is untenable in the long run will be proven right in the end.

Maybe one day a true Marxist regime will emerge. Cuba is the nearest thing. They have free schools and healthcare and rank higher than the United States of America on the World Health Organisations ranking of health outcomes - despite being economically crippled by guess who? The good ol' USA !

[Mike]

There are no true Marxist's country nor will there be any in the foreseeable future. If you want a true picture of Marx's ideas watch Star Trek. There is no money and no one uses more than they need because they can have anything they want, at any time. The only thing of value one can gain is greater status and that is built up solely by working to the best of one's ability.

I think many of you have spoken without reading Marx. His ideas are very powerful, but it is doubtful they can ever be implemented by humans and if they are, it will be a very, very long time from now.

[daniel]

" You can't say that Socialism will never work because Stalin got it wrong"

Perhaps Stalin got it wrong because socialism can never be gotten right.

It's a collective system, every collective system leads to crimes against the idividual. It doesn't really matter on which ideals this collective system is based.

[Chris]

Democratically and gradually moving to the left would be a good start. Let's see if Obama can get it rolling. Free education and health care (including dentists!) for all would do for now, while regulating stupidly high bonuses and football player pay checks among other things. No communist regime I can recall has been democratic -1st problem- (Maybe Venezuela?)
Agreed that it is a utopian idea - for now. But it doesn't have to be black or white

[Bridget]

Capitalism no longer works, so, yes, Marx did get it right.

"All that is solid melts into air ..."

[Gavin]

The US political/economic system is closer to corporate fascism that any kind of democratic capitalism

[martyn]

Marx like Adam Smith before had great insight into the nature of industrial capitalism and into its flawed heart with its boom and crash nature. However he lacked an appreciation of the complexity of society and the inertia of the sated masses. To blame Marx for Stalin's communism is to completely misunderstand and belittle Marx and Smith's ideas.

[Brother Number 7]

Russia didn't apply Marxist principles correctly ........unlike our great leader Pol Pot. If you stick to the idea you get paradise!!!
Plus no interference from foreign, capitalist exploiters like Specsavers. Bother Number One removed the need for their terrible commercials. Markets failing -Try Marxpol!

[James]

He made mistakes, but anyone that can say they woke up covered in cash in bed next to Miss World in a Las Vegas hotel can't have got it all wrong.

[will]

45% of people thought marks was right?

the only thing we learn from history is that we dont learn from history.

having never read marx i cant really say why hes wrong, but having a modicum of common sense you are have an inkling that socialism is running against the grain of how the natural world works.
the idea that you can centrally plan, control, run any ecconomy is insane. Even in mathmatics they are pretty much in consensus that the universe is unpredictable.
then in psycology it pretty much proves that socialism is inefficient, ie if your guranteed a job for life, the company you work for cant go bankrupt and you have no shareholders to answer to, then why would anybody who works for that company innovate or even attempt to make a profit? it is a famous case in the soviet ecconomies that in the years following their collapse and conversion to capitalism that workers wouldnt undestand why they where getting sacked for being in a redundant job. there where in fact some companies where workers did absolutely nothing all day except read the newspaper and who couldnt see any problem with that scenario(and that is from a first hand source) also in those countries they had no concept of profit, ie why would you sell something for more than it costs you to make. never mind that profit is the only incentive for new companies to be set up and new technologies to be invented. could any politburo 5 year plan predict the internet for example?

just because the global financial market has crashed is no reason to go back and become socialist.

as Churchill said,“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Nobody would deny that we have paid to much attention to financial services, but to attack the entrepreneur and the small business and the inventor would be to remove opportunity from our society

[Neil Johnson]

John Baldacchino - Spot on.

[Loera de la Llave]

So, the great philosopher, cum economist, cum sociologist, dead and buried with a capitalist stake in his radical heart, now threatens to rise from his grave, and just in time for the American Halloween. Well done, uncle Karl! Scare the begeesuz out of the Empire!

There is one element qualifying any theory that advances superstructural properties as the key force of history. The element is the means of material survival. In advanced societies, it sublates into modes of surfeit production and of capital enrichment. This, the basic infrastructural, takes priority to any structural (i.e., institutional) and superstructural (i.e., cultural) consideration.

An economic system based on avarice, which is a vice and contradicts agapé and caritas, cannot possibly be just nor of benefit to vast humanity.

The notion of surplus value, which Marx picked up from Ricardo, is fundamental to understand the unequal accumulation of capital, the exploitation of the working class, and the impoverishment of the vast majority of mankind throughout the world.

[will]

terry francis, your idea that marxism should be tried out on a fully developed country that would have the finance and infrastructure to support marxism surely is proof positive that marxism cant work.

if it is impossible for an underdeveloped country to become developed through marxism why would it be taken up when other methods have been the ones that have developed the country? and then if marxism needs the infrastructure and finances in place already surely that implies that marxism will inevitably make any country that takes it up all the poorer?

[shaun]

Its been a while since I studied this but I don't think either the Soviet or the Chinese models reflect true Marxist communism, according to Marx before we can attain Communism we must endure a capitalist revolution. Both Russia and China went from Feudal or Imperial models straight to communism, perhaps here in the West we will be the first?

[Naleen]

I wonder how many even read the DAS KAPITAL. He stated that at least economic history is linear in that it evolved from villages to feudal society to capitalist society to socialist society and eventually, as he theorize, into communist society - where there is no government. It is interesting Americans distrust governments more now then ever before yet they consider Marx to be wrong.

I think he is wrong not because of the ignorant comments since Soviet or PRC are not and never were a socialist state, let alone a communist society. I am a Arendt supporters who argued that Marx's was wrong to consider LABOR through which humans could achieve their highest potential. Instead, Arendt argues that the POLIS, public life, is where human achieve their highest potential. If you do not know the differences between LABOR, which is a function of private individuals & the polis or public life, that is because of political economist like SMITH, LOCKE, MARX, and yet you still have no clue.

[Mark Calkx]

Of course Marx was wrong; he was a workshy whinger, who wanted to redraw the social structure of the world so that he would be feted, pampered and treated as a king. The only amazing part of it is that anyone believed in his claptrap, when it's so obviously just self-promoting.

[shaun]

Its been a while since I studied this but I don't think either the Soviet or the Chinese models reflect true Marxist communism, according to Marx before we can attain Communism we must endure a capitalist revolution. Both Russia and China went from Feudal or Imperial models straight to communism, perhaps here in the West we will be the first?

[Valerio]

As always communists, like all the evil things in the world, they never die. Asking if Karl Marx was right is like asking if England will win 2010 World Cup: the answer is NO!

[will]

chris

capitalism takes time. britain before the industrial revolution was an agrarian society bordering on subsitance. but we embraced capitalism and over time became rich.

socialism will never make anybody rich all it will do is hold everybody down to the level of the poor. which isnt exactly fair. if we had free trade with 3rd world countries instead of subsidising our farmers and hence making it impossible for 3rd worlder famers to sell their food to us hencing making it impossible for them to raise finance then no 3 rd world countries will find it extremely hard. but if we did have free trade they would go through the same process we went through in the 1700s. ie landowners building factories as it is more profitable than farming, which over time improves the lot of workers. look at the example of the mill owners who built schools, houses and shops for their workers.

if you cannot see the inherent virtue of capitalism from that then there is no hope.

[Karl Marx]

But didn't I saw quite clearly that if my followers are Marxists then I am not!

Do not blame all this sh*t on me!

[Justin]

Blair, Brown and the EUSSR have PROVED that Marxism does not work. End of debate.

[Exiled Scot]

I read the question as referring to one of a series of crises of capitalism that will be necessary to erode capitalism and set up a fairer society and the man was right!

[NMB]

Uncontrolled capitalism is like a no-speed-limit freeway, while it may serve some well, inevitably it leads to a disaster.
Marx proposes a strict central control/ownership of the economic model, isn't that what we are witnessing now!
Marx was a realist, he did not trust individual greed over public good.
Given recent revelations of insatiable greed and larceny of bankers and financiers, I am slowly coming around to seeing his point.
Ultimately, all economic models are Marxist to some degree, since they involve public control and ownership.
So, in that sense, Yes, he got it right.

[Sid]

marx is not right. capitalism and communism are two extremes and they are just complementary to each other. Whats happening is just a check.Its cycle of purification and this becomes more grave because many faults and scams either surface or are tried to cover in the name of recession.

[Sid]

marx is not right. capitalism and communism are two extremes and they are just complementary to each other. Whats happening is just a check.Its cycle of purification and this becomes more grave because many faults and scams either surface or are tried to cover in the name of recession.

[Neil Bashforth]

Adam Smith was correct. The free market is the best and most efficient way of allocating resources because the profit motive will always reach a point where supply meets demand.

However, we must also pay attention to the duty of governments in providing resources which are natural monopolies, e.g. Gas/Oil/Security, and also in its role to regulate markets.

It really should not be legal to bet on competing income streams (SWAPS), to amalgamate and sell on others peoples debt ( Mortgage backed securities).

The stockmarket should be used to invest not gamble, 'per se'. The banking sector will make money again and the government should liquidate all holdings in this sector as soon as it is convenient to do so.

As for Marx is a Democracy not a dictatorship of the proles. I would argue that USSR/China was not Marxist, and that the USA is the closest nation to becoming Marxist. That is Dictator of the proles.

However, no government can plan production to fufil utility for 50 million people, therefore it must be decentralised. Economics must be decentralised.

Also political power must also be decentralised. The Thesis is the Political Party, the Anti-thesis is the voter. The power of decision making must slowly be taken away from politicians and given to the ordinary voter. This process is at its most advanced in the USA. When this occurs we will have Communism as envisioned by Marx.

[V. C. Bhutani]

Marx had very little understanding of economics and less of society, especially those of the East - China and India. Having died about 1883 he had access to what all was available in England and Europe by that date. He has nowhere explained his concept of class, although his entire thought revolves around the 'struggle between classes'. Besides, he was never adopted in the land of his birth, Germany, or in the land of his adoption, England. He was adopted, notably, in Russia and China - and he was abandoned by both. His most ardent followers are now to be found in India and in this country they are not in power as Marxists but as constitutional parties. Which is a far cry from what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Jeremiah]

Given that his idea was that socialism would liberate the masses its funny that it has given us Lenin Stalin Mao Tse Tung Pol Pot and this present buch of Trotskyites who won't rest until they have depriverd the British public of every civil right they have

[Frank Upton]

Karl Marx made most of his data up. He was really no more than Victor Meldrew with boils and a nice line in journalism. Unfortunately he was an excuse for some seriously nasty people to fulfill their dreams of domination.

[Raymond]

The only certainty is that Capitalism got it wrong.Socialism has nothing whatsoever got to do with the CURRENT capitalistic down turn. Marx was not the rolemodel for Socialism, but Western banks and their cohorts were the role models for greed and Capitalism.

[Scott Benowitz]

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles would probably not even recognize the structures of the present day governments China, North Korea, Cuba or those of some of the countries of eastern Europe prior to the early 1990's as being something that could be construed as having been designed as a direct influence of their writings- Although their agriculture is collectivized at the national level, the direct link to the writings of Marx or Engels really ends there-
What Marx or Engles were advocating would probably look more like the present day government of Israel or perhaps the government funded nationwide socialized medical programs which are found today in Canada, the U.K. and in Scandanavia-

[Bill]

I voted yes because I think that Marx was correct in his broad analysis. What he got wrong was the timing of the changes. I think he thought that advanced capitalist states like Britain and France wound be the first to segue into socialism and communism because they were the farthest along the inevitable path. Perhaps he didn't understand that the entire planet has to go through a capitalist phase before any one area can go further. I give it another couple hundred years for this to play itself out.

[Marie-Louise]

Just which "it" did you wish to address?

[dave hall]

For those who aren't sure what they are answering -

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

Wisdom indeed...

[Paddy Apling]

No one else has come anywhere near to explaining how capitalism works as Karl Marx did.
And don't forget he came top in the poll for the Greatest Philosopher in the BBC In Our Time Poll.

He should come top in this one as well.

[Janus]

Hegel was the organ grinder, Marx was the monkey. And no is the answer.

[Anna]

An old Russian joke: "-is Marxism an art or a science? -It must be an art.If it were a science, they would experiment on mice before exposing people to it".
That's opinion of Russians.
Here is G-d's opinion: Don't covet what belongs to your neigbor.

[Phil de Buquet]

We have New Labour government where half of 'em are Marxists and the other half are from the planet Zog so we now have a chance to pay to find out. The present Chancellor says he's going to spend us out of recession. Considering we're up to our backsides in debt and the Treasury is empty, we need Marvo the Magician to magic up some cash, not Darling and Brown, loss adjustors to the trade.

[ahyas]

I think you'll find the writing of Marx substantially different to the practical communism that developed in the Soviet Union. However this is not to say he 'got it right'.

[Andreas]

I laugh at people who clearly have no idea about Marxism. Marxism is ideal for those who want equality and Capitalism ideal for those who want to be rich.

Bias aside Marx's model was indeed ideal when it came to resource management and equality. Those who think that the Soviet system was indeed the ideal Marxist model just sound/read brainwashed.

The Marxist model might be perfect, however people are not perfect. It cannot work. For similar reasons the Capitalist model cannot work.

It is the time and age for the Mixed Economy System to become international.

[Matt]

In Capitalism, man exploits man.
In Communism, it's just the other way round!

[Nilsey105]

No one gets things 100% right ALL the time. As George Osborne has found out to his expense today.

Marx did get many things correct as the Archbishop of Canterbury has proclaimed and as he is a man very close to god i tend to believe him.

[Graeme Harker]

Maghnad Desai's book "Marx's Revenge" turns out to have been spookily prophetic and well worth a re-read in these times of crisis.

[Miles Gloriosus]

Was Marx right about what? (1) He was certainly right about the fact that capitalism's preoccupation with money affects people's way of seeing the world. (2) He was right about capitalism's tendency to periodic economic crises. (3) He was right about the role of economic crises in holding down wages by making large numbers of workers redundant -- thereby recruiting them into the "reserve army of the unemployed" -- to instill fear into workers who still had their jobs. (4) He was right about capitalism's tendency toward increased concentration of wealth and increased inequality. (5) He might have been right about the causes of economic crises (changes in the "organic composition of capital"). (6) He was probably wrong in thinking that human nature could be changed by changing the organization of production. (7) He was probably wrong in thinking that socialism would naturally evolve out of capitalism, though we can certainly hope he was right after all.

[Sarah]

Dear oh dear... when will the world learn that Marxism and practiced Communism are two very different concepts? Go and read the books before you comment.

[Julian]

Giles, Fascism was not based on the literature of Nietzsche. Nazism misinterpreted Nietzsche and even then it is debatable whether this variant was of the Fascist strain. As for Marx, whilst he predicted the fall of capitalism by way of it falling in on itself (which it is) there will always be people to sustain the system, outweighing those who genuinely wish to reform it.

[dave]

Whichever system we have the devious,greedy and psychopathic will always learn how to manipulate it to their own advantage. Before capitalism and communism the richest organisation was the church and we still had poverty, inequality and war.

[Whig]

*Soviet Russia failed for lots of reasons. Some people also argue that it wasn't a true marxist state.*

Enough of this claptrap: the Soviet Union and other Communist states were based on the writings of Marx, as made practicable by Vladimr Lenin in such works as `What is to be done?'

As Regis Dubray said, Lenin was Paul to Marx's Jesus.

If, as alleged, the Soviets didn't `live up' to what Marx allegedly wrote, it is due to the deficiencies of the latter's theories, rather than any `betrayal' of them on the part of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc etc.

[Sergei]

Sorry, but the question is basically flawed, so answering it makes little sense. The point is Marx was a complex thinker, who had and put in writing his views on a mind-boggling variety of subjects. On some he nailed it, on others not so much. Dialectic materialism is his most important gift to the posterity.

[Pepe]

I think all of this is immaterial rubbish.

Its simply commonsensical that goods including health, education, housing, roads, rails, airlines, street furniture and all those things which constitute national infrastructure and public amenity should remain public goods and be solidly and legally entrenched as such. The private sector can deal with everything else.

Any suggestions to the contrary can only be the work of criminals, profiteers, zionists, racketeers, imperialists, religious fundamentalists and all the other evil scum that makes this World such a terrible place to live in.

[Abraham Philocrat]

Marx was a philosopher. Since when in the the history of the western civilisation have you seen or witnessed any philosopher's thought correctly interpreted, let alone correclty implemented? None. Marx's thoughts were not only grossly misunderstood but also brainlessly actioned by those who thought that they understood what he was talking about. The only way to know whether he was right or wrong is for the western politicians to allow a model of his thinking to be tested somewhere on this planet, not by politicians nor by any breed of human beings, but by philosophers. I argue that only a philosopher can accurately implement another philosopher's vision.

[Duane Terrell]

Ha Ha Ha, Marx getting it right? Where do I began?

9-11 destroyed an important financial sector and caused billions of dollars worth of damage and nearly took out the airline industry in the process.

Katina nearly wiped a city off the face of the earth which will be expensive to fix and damaged gas refineries

Ike damage gas refineries.

The world demand for gas increased and prices increased causing gas prices to go up pinching especially poor americans. I guess Marx would have rationed the gas.

The sub-primte mortage bust was government trying to give people the "american dream" instead of letting them qualify for it. The right to pursuit happens does not mean you have a right to be happy or have a part of the "american dream".

Then there is WWIII (or IV) - The war on Terrorism unless you want idiots to think America does not respond harshly to killing 3k of our people this is a war you have to fight. Yeah, we didn't find weapons of mass destruction. So what? Hindsight is 20/20.

Yet, with all of this 95% of the people are still working? Ha Ha Ha Why are we even discussing Karl?

The introduction refers to Karl as "the Prussian". He was from from the Rhineland, and his Mama was from Nijmegen.
RGPearson

The introduction refers to Karl as "the Prussian". He was from from the Rhineland, and his Mama was from Nijmegen.
RGPearson

[M Green]

Marx was a 19th century man writing about the world he saw and its history as he understood it. Das Kapital is interesting if one extrapolates the phenomena he described, such as 'surplus value' and 'alienation,' to the global economy. In such a context 'capitalism' is a house of credit cards that requires no uprising of the prolitariate to bring it down. I don't rejoice in the coming changes. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was.

[Acidwarp]

Hey Giles, in case you didn't go to school, Plato is a big opponent to democracy.

As for Marx, he is right in criticizing capitalism, he is wrong in putting everybody to equal power.

'there is no bigger injustice than putting unequal things equal.'

[Polo]

my friends, when a country needs a socialist, it votes or fights for one...

when the same country needs a strong man( i.e. USA-9/11) it elects or chooses one...

all countries go through phases of these two and others form of government...

the real tragedy is democracy...what a dotty concept...

the way of the world is as follow, people will do what's natural to them...'that' encompasses everything in this fallacy of a world...

happy x-mas...hahahaha...

[RW]

The opening pages of Das Kapital appear to have major flaws in the argument. Example: Marx did not appear to take into account such "trivial details" as costs of transportation of goods. With that kind of a mess at the outset, I have full confidence that the rest is also riddled with errors, as is befitting for a highly academic work written the a library.

I am curious just how much first hand experience Marx had with commerce; I suspect little.

[RW]

The opening pages of Das Kapital appear to have major flaws in the argument. Example: Marx did not appear to take into account such "trivial details" as costs of transportation of goods. With that kind of a mess at the outset, I have full confidence that the rest is also riddled with errors, as is befitting for a highly academic work written the a library.

I am curious just how much first hand experience Marx had with commerce; I suspect little.

[candid]

Are you serious? Most people have no idea of he said.
You're actually right when you say that Marx's works have been "consigned to obscure curricula". Therefore you could hardly expect many people to actually know what he said. Even if they can interpret it rightly.

[Ian]

I am interested to see the results of this poll, yet the comments reveal that most of you know little about Socialism, dsepite being apparent know-it-alls about this same system. First of all Neoconservatism and Socialism (much less Leon Trotsky's definition)are polar opposites.

Socialist Permanent Revolution is apples to oranges compared to Neocon bourgeois corporate plutocracy. Please, I encourage those who would have words to do with this to read some genuine material on the subject.

The socialist revolution, which signifies the forcible entrance of the masses into conscious political struggle, portends the greatest and most progressive transformation of the form of man’s social organization in world history – the ending of society based on classes and, therefore, of the exploitation of human beings by other human beings. A transformation so immense is the work of an entire historical epoch.

We must understand that this is using science applied to political thought with the proletariot at its head. There must be a large democratic union of the masses. It is neither Leninism or Trotskyism or Marxism but the best defining portent of all of these, this is what the meaning of Permanent Revolution is; the breaking down of reactionary fictions of a ruling elite and a society based on the struggle of the working class.

[zhutdamrak]

It depends on what topic he supposedly was right. Sober Marxist Materialism is the closest theory we have to the truth in Social Studies.
His economic theories were as it seems now atleast, flawed. The capital accumulation process failed to produce one single hegemonic corporation. General Motors got superceded by IBM which got superseded by Microsoft - an effect described by Schumpeter as creative destruction.

[Lorenzo]

Dear Friends!

Let me ask you the following, did Capitalism get it right?

Lets ask those on whoose shoudlers the current capitalist system is based: thats about 85% of the world population living below our standards, becuase they are supproting us under current system to mantain OUR standards.

Is it not the case that an only viable case of a better Capitalism which would benefit all shold be based on the curbing and regulation of the accumulation of wealth, production and distribution into a few hands in favour of a larger level of self-sustainment?

Well that sounds like Marx to me. So YES in part he did get right!

[Jack Dawson]

Of course Marx got it right - essentially. Read him!!

"The Marxian 'law' of value is to political economy as the 2nd law is to thermodynamics."

- Jack Dawson

[D. L. Guerra]

Loera de Llave paints Marx as a spectre threatening the American psyche. Truth be told, the writings of Marx are long-snore inducing. Who the heck ever really read 'im, other than the Bolsheviks who screwed up Mother Russia? The rest of the world probably fell asleep by page 2.

[Christian]

No, he didn't, he clearly says that capitalism will fall because it will give the weapons to the proletarians to destroy it. I cannot see what weapons this are, and either I can't see productive(not financial) capitalsm falling apart. It would be more rational to ask if Lenin, not Marx, was right.

[john]

Marx provided the law of motion by which capitalist society will develop and then collapse . So much tosh has been spoken about him.As with E=MC2 would you travel to Saturn by Newton ? Answer no ..because light curves ,and so you wouldnt get there if you fixed a course under Newtonian physics.

So why ignore a theory that has correctly predicted this crash.If you want to carry on blind then go to another planet and do it.

[john]

Marx provided the law of motion by which capitalist society will develop and then collapse . So much tosh has been spoken about him.As with E=MC2 would you travel to Saturn by Newton ? Answer no ..because light curves ,and so you wouldnt get there if you fixed a course under Newtonian physics.

So why ignore a theory that has correctly predicted this crash.If you want to carry on blind then go to another planet and do it.

[Gerard Mulholland]

Two things.
First, Marx was not a Prussian. He was a Rhinelander, born near the German western frontier in a city of which the King of Prussia (over in the east of Germany) happened coincidentally to be the Sovereign Duke. Calling him a Prussian is like calling Alex Salmond English just because the Queen of Scotland happens to be also the Queen of England.
Second, Marx's prediction that capitalism will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions is self-evidently true and a very good example of what will eventually happen was laid out before our eyes over this past three weeks. marx's conclusion as to what will eventually follow capitalism was wildly wrong.

[T. R. Otsky]

He didn't get everything right. Then again did Lehman Bros, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley et al. Now if they were owned entirely by the state? Who knows theres time yet.

[Hector]

I have yet to find a detractor of Marx and Marxism who have read a single book of Marx and got it right. Of course he was right about the true nature of Capitalism. Only there those critics, most of whom live a comfortable life I presume , will find an explanation of where the money is gone and why the rest of the people have to worry about financial crises and how to make ends meet every month. Of course is easier to judge and hate from ignorance but it is not an excuse to the intolerance in the western world towards Marxism, Marxists and Marxist ideas. It was never only all about labeling religion as a hurdle for society. I wasn't about taking the children from their parents and make them grow in communist farms either. Finally, I would like the works of Marx more available to people but I cannot suggest to go looking for Karl Marx books and make him a best seller because, who is going to get the royalties?

[Francis Cousins]

Actually Rosa Luxemburg got it right.

She said 100 years ago that Monopoly & Bureaucracy are the enemies of Freedom & Enterprise.

I was determined to find out if I really had a choice but,try as I might, the people at the call centre wouldn't tell me.

[Ian]

I loved his old movies ... Oh wait, sorry, that was Groucho.

[Alejandro Tomasini]

So far as I know, there's no alternative explanation of the way capitalism functions. Unless I'm totally blind, I feel to see that alienation, explotation, systematic destruction of nature, concentration of capital, etc., etc., are everyday phenomena, are our reality. Only a totally misguided person could link the accuracy of Marx's expalantion with the political developments of the XXth Century.