Since Marx came from a rich family in Nordrhein-Westfalen, why did he come up with his nutty communism idea?

Question

I mean, the whole nutty idea is about an idealized society where there's equality and no so-called "classes". But why did he care about this nonsense? Where did he learn all that garbage?

Answer 1

Marxist theory is just that, a theory. It could never be forced onto an existing society and closely resembles hunter/gatherer socieies. He took a simple society and imposed his theory upon an industrialized society. However, once someone owns something, and once there are classes, you cannot go back to a simpler time.

Answer 2

if you and your family are rich enough to own a computer and be on the internet, then why do you condemn idea about classes as nonsense, when some people don't even have a home? is a homeless person equal to you in status? or do calsses actually exist, after all?
there is a saying: "History is written by the victors." Maybe you should think about YOUR background, before you judge others.
The reason communism didn't "catch on", is because of a little thing called McCarthyism, which some might say treated potential communist sympathisers only a little better than the "Juden" of Nazi Germany, in the early years.
The American government at the time believed that "The domino effect" (the policy that communism was such a good idea, that it would spread from country to country) was so likely, that it required an arms race, a space program, and a war in an ex French-colony to prevent its spread.

Answer 3

I believe this would be a psychology question, but whatever.

"Marx considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of production. But Marx argued that capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx understood that during such a crisis the price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy.

Marx believed that this cycle of growth, collapse, and growth would be punctuated by increasingly severe crises. Moreover, he believed that the long-term consequence of this process was necessarily the enrichment and empowerment of the capitalist class and the impoverishment of the proletariat. He believed that were the proletariat to seize the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of production less vulnerable to periodic crises. In general, Marx thought that peaceful negotiation of this problem was impracticable, and that a massive, well-organized and violent revolution would in general be required, because the ruling class would not give up power without violence. He theorized that to establish the socialist system, a dictatorship of the proletariat - a period where the needs of the working-class, not of capital, will be the common deciding factor - must be created on a temporary basis. As he wrote in his "Critique of the Gotha Program", "between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Yet he was aware of the possibility that in some countries, with strong democratic institutional structures (e.g. Britain, the US and the Netherlands) this transformation could occur through peaceful means, while in countries with a strong centralized state-oriented traditions, like France and Germany, the upheaval will have to be violent."

Basically, he WAS from a rich family, but that just means that he had the means to educate himself and follow the patterns of economy. He was an idealist. Capitalism works, but following the pattern it will have increasing amounts of depressions, getting worse and worse, at the expense of the common worker. Unsatisfied with that, he thought up something along the lines of Plato's idealistic society.

Answer 4

Read a bit. It might help.
Marx actually came up with one of the most brilliant analyses of CAPITALISM for his time (and today, actually), not communism. He didn't want communism to happen, but saw patterns in his world leading towards it. He saw what was happening in factories (which is why he got together with Engels to modernize a factory to AVOID a communist revolution, which he saw not necessarily as a good thing, but as nearly inevitable under current conditions). His "idealized" society was frightening to Marx himself and still frightens many.

That "nonsense" was one of the most influential ideas of the modern world, created empires and still partly runs the largest population in the world. It was feared not because it was nonsense or garbage but because it was deeply threatening to the status quo.

Where did you learn lazy thinking?? Marx learned by looking at the world around himself and drawing conclusions from it. Any ideas you've come up with that will change the world?

Answer 5

A) Marx did not create communism, he brought up the ideas of Marxism which later influenced others to create socialism, Karl Marx wasn't creating a form of government, he wa sjust saying,"Want to kow what would be nice...?"

B) Just because he came from a rich family doesn't mean he wasn't a person who cared about tryign to make everybody happy. Marx probably was a nice guy who wanted to help as many people as he coudl be creating a political and economical system in which everybody is well off.

Answer 6

It's not as difficult to comprehend as you're making it out to be.

Marx had a PhD in economics. He simply thought through the consequences of a capitalist economy.

Take the simplest class case: two classes, rich and poor.

Capitalism can not function with these two classes. The poor are too poor to consume, the rich make their money lending to the poor and selling them goods and services. The poor go deeper and deeper into debt to keep the economy going. The rich profit twice; once from lending, once from selling. They accumulate more and more wealth, impoverishing the masses further.

Capitalism would sow the seeds of its own destruction in that case.

Currently, the United States is the largest economy in the world. It's no coincidence that the US is also the largest DEBTOR nation in the world.

Capitalism* is still sowing the seeds of its own destruction.

*The US is actually characterized by State Capitalism. The state (the government) susidizes industries and their risks from public monies, but the profits are privatized. It's a grand redistribution of wealth from the masses to the rich. This is why we are the world's largest debtor nation. The pyramid scheme has functioned so far thanks to petro-dollar hegemony &, recently, large infusions of cash from the mercantilist, communist Chinese. When the worlds's largest "capitalist" nation has to borrow from the communist Chinese to keep its economy afloat, you know something is askew!

Answer 7

Communism is only a 'nutty' idea if you consider 'christianity' a nutty idea. Aren't they the same? Jesus said treat everyone equally - as brothers and sisters? Didn't he say that you should give all your possessions to charity and pick up your cross and follow him? Isn't Communism based on this same idea of no one having any possessions and everyone being treated equally? Why are the fundamentalist christians in this country so violently opposed to Communism when it sound like exactly what their savior was preaching?

Answer 8

The principles werenn't garbage, but it is impossible to create a totally equal society. Somebody is always higher than the rest. He probably had empath for the lower classes, like Lloyd George in Britain.

Answer 9

I don't know that it was his intent. His intent was to surmise the downfall of capitalism at the hands of socialism - not communism. Communism is a bi-product of socialism. He simply wanted for the working classes to have more of a hold on their own reality than they did, and he produced a theory of how that might come to fruition - he was an early sociologist with some big ideas. That's all!

He is not the father of communism, as so many might think.

Answer 10

all varieties, think of approximately it, even in secular words without stating the bible i can respond to this one there is an ole asserting that Adversity if the mum of invention, war working example is usually a nasty element, yet seem on the advances we made n war, Medicnes and technologies, I mean rather ? we'd have by no potential are starting to be this some distance if it weren't for our being at each and every others throats ? as for ailments? those tension us to think of, attempt and inspire us to conquer, reasons us to advance in expertise, keeps us from being too complacent. From a Biblical Christian attitude ? i think of that the respond is two-fold. One, ultimately, no person is harmless. All have sinned and fallen in need of the distinction of God (Rom. 3:23) and are by potential of nature toddlers of wrath (Eph. 2:3). there is none harmless. nonetheless it rather is biblically precise, it would not fulfill the question emotionally. Why do little toddlers go through for issues they have not achieved? i'd desire to renowned that i don't understand. ultimately, we would desire to have confidence God who's often occurring with the initiating from the top and sees the grand photograph. he will have the wonderful be conscious and he would be vindicated. in end ? suffering is the end results of human sin. the international isn't the way that God created it and thanks to that, all are liable to the outcomes of sin interior the international. Why does one individual go through and yet another would not? Why do catastrophes ensue to three and to not others? it rather is because of the fact sin is interior the international. yet there'll come an afternoon whilst the Lord will return and cleanse this international of all sin and all suffering. "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there'll be not extra loss of life, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be from now on discomfort: for the former issues are surpassed directly to the full beyond," (Rev. 21:4).