I don't want to be accused of putting words in Karl Marx's mouth. I realize the poor guy gets a much undeserved bad rap, and I don't want to malign him unduly. After all, he is something of a hero around here. That said, would Marx agree or disagree with the following unattributed statement? In fact, wasn't that Marx's whole objection to kapital, more or less? Just checking.
Fail Apparently you got lost on the way to DU. And why do you feel your failure to get a nine-word excerpt correct is an incentive for anyone to take you seriously?
Just in Barack Obama's mouth instead. By the way, if I can find a statement from you that Karl Marx would have agreed with, will that make you a Marxist?
Re: cpurick fails They're the ones who showed up to this thread to defend Marx and Obama. You are the supporting evidence.
Re: cpurick fails Then you can link to a specific post or posts in which I so much as mentioned Marx (excluding Groucho). That is, after you respond to this.
Marxists like to emphasise the social nature of capital. But why should anyone take your post seriously?
FTFY. Standard lib playbook: Rethink the concepts that underpin conventional morality in order to make immoral behavior politically correct. You have a problem killing babies? That's okay, because now they're just "tissue." In Marx's case, previous notions of the origin of property are discarded in favor of a philosophy which recognizes no moral basis for property rights. Suddenly, your ownership of anything is no longer morally justified by how you acquired it, but solely determined by whether government allows you to have it.
Utter nonsense, once again underlining the fact that you are completely ignorant of the mans writings. And no, that is not a good thing. Being educated means reading more than the things that you agree with.
