NYT Celebrates Marx's Birthday With Op-Ed: 'Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!'

[mystery-ak]

 ByBen Shapiro
@benshapiro
April 30, 2018
60k views

On Monday, Kyung Hee University associate philosophy professor Jason Barker penned an op-ed for The New York Times celebrating Karl Marx’s birthday with this exciting headline: “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!” If he was, the people north of the 38th parallel might have an interest in hearing about it, but Barker earned his space in the Times, which has spent the last two years reviving talk of communism’s glories in articles like “When Communism Inspired Americans,” “Socialism’s Future May Be Its Past,” and “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism.”

So, how was Marx right — aside from the mountains of corpses created under the rubric of his ideology? According to Barker, Marx was filled with “boundless intellectual enthusiasm.” And Barker criticizes Marx’s reliance on Hegel: “If ever there were a convincing case to be made for the dangers of philosophy, then surely it’s Marx’s discover of Hegel.” But then Barker gets to his case:

more
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30050/nyt-celebrates-marxs-birthday-op-ed-happy-birthday-ben-shapiro

[goatprairie]

Marxism was supposed to make the average working stiff as well off as Rockefeller and the other business tycoons. Instead it made most members of the working class miserable.  The only people who became well off under Marxism was....ta da...the high muckety mucks in the Communist Party. They ate well while average citizens struggled to feed their families.
Meanwhile under terrible capitalism, workers improved their lives greatly. 
Even Leon Trotsky, living in New York City, was dismayed to find out that the average tenement dwellers in NYC had their own toilet. In many European  countries families had to share toilets with other families.
When Lenin asked him about the prospects of communism in American, Trotksy related to him that fact.
The Marxists never thought that could happen. They never realized that when those nasty, evil "robber barons" made their millions/billions, the average worker got a better life.
Much of that gain in wealth was due to individual inventors who became rich under capitalism allowing the rest of the world to benefit from what they created. That would never have happened under Marxism.

[Applewood]

The local news yesterday had a piece about May Day yesterday.  The news readers were all aglow as they read the report and showed videos of the celebrations.  Missing, of course, was the terrible history behind May Day.  It was nice to see marchers from  SEIU and all the other unions.  Those of us who know history now have confirmation that these unions are commie organizations.

[mountaineer]

The NYT's slogan is, "Democracy Dies in Darkness." It should be, "Sanity Has Died in Full View."

[driftdiver]

Ironic that the NYT is owned by a bunch of rich people, most of which never had to actually work for their money.

[andy58-in-nh]

Ironic that the NYT is owned by a bunch of rich people, most of which never had to actually work for their money.

In other words, they are the only people who ever benefit from Marxism: its Ruling Class.

"Happy Birthday Karl Marx: Because 100 million dead human beings in the 20th century is a record we can surely beat in the 21st!"

Burn in Hell, you bearded bastard.

[Bigun]

Here's a little excerpt from the Manifesto Karl and his Buddy Fred put together:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy top wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
   
1.   Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
   
2.   A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
   
3.   Abolition of all right of inheritance.
   
4.   Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
   
5.   Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
   
6.   Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
   
7.   Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
   
8.   Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
   
9.   Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
   
10.   Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
   
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

It comes from the second section (the one in which they instruct fellow travlers as to how they should go about taking over developed countries) toward the end.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[driftdiver]

Here's a little excerpt from the Manifesto Karl and his Buddy Fred put together:

It comes from the second section (the one in which they instruct fellow travlers as to how they should go about taking over developed countries) toward the end.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

If you have Netflix look up "First They Killed My Father".  Its about a young girl during the takover by Pol Pot in Cambodia.   Its a very good illustration of what those rules equate to in real life.

[Bigun]

If you have Netflix look up "First They Killed My Father".  Its about a young girl during the takover by Pol Pot in Cambodia.   Its a very good illustration of what those rules equate to in real life.

I've seen it. Thanks! 

I wonder how many will take the time to actually look at that list and think about what has happened here in this country over the last 150 years or so.

[GrouchoTex]

Marx, indeed, was right.

He was right about a ready and willing Press being useful idiots.
Media and educators are usually the 1st to be banished, or worse.
NYT better be careful what they wish for.

Why have all of our journalist come down with a case of the dumb-ass?

Don't they teach history in J school?

I know, I know, it's a censored history, if taught at all....