What the ...,? Did Marx have a maid? [Archive]

NovelGentry

29th May 2005, 22:49

Engels owned a factory. And now I hear Marx had a servant. Che also slaughtered anyone he suspected of dissidence.

We romanticize these figures far too much, we aren't cynical enough about these people. Just because we might agree with them on economics, doesn't mean we agree on everything.

A) servants don't create capital -- given the way economies have run since Marx's time and up to now, it'd be extremely difficult at best to determine what is to come of services labor. If we had a system that worked on labor time, it'd be a lot easier, but we didn't then, and we don't now.

B) Engels' factory was actually his fathers -- and without him having entered into that position he probably wouldn't have acquired much of the empathy he had for the working class.

C) I also heard Che killed people with AIDS...

This type of thing is really starting to piss me off... everyone's on their high horse and is about ready to try and knock every past revolutionary off of it based on their own lack of knowledge, misunderstanding of what these people were, or bourgeoisie lies.

If you think for a minute that none of these people have been influenced by their times, you're wrong... and if you think that somehow you are above that, you are also wrong. It is extremely difficult to overcome all aspects of the current society you're living in, whether it be the reactionary mode of thinking, the lifestyle which entails, or just generally what you believe you are fond of.

We, revolutionaries or otherwise, will not be free from this until we are free from capitalism and the society we are currently in -- you do not have another option. These people recognized this and attempted to understand it and/or do something about it. All you do is sit here and attack them and others for it. How revolutionary you are.

RedStarOverChina

29th May 2005, 22:59

The first case of aids appeared in 1979 (I think) and Che died way before that.

NovelGentry

29th May 2005, 23:05

The first case of aids appeared in 1979 (I think) and Che died way before that.

This was my point.

ErikuSz -sXe-

29th May 2005, 23:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:49 PM
A) servants don't create capital -- given the way economies have run since Marx's time and up to now, it'd be extremely difficult at best to determine what is to come of services labor. If we had a system that worked on labor time, it'd be a lot easier, but we didn't then, and we don't now.

B) Engels' factory was actually his fathers -- and without him having entered into that position he probably wouldn't have acquired much of the empathy he had for the working class.

C) I also heard Che killed people with AIDS...
Well it doesn't matter now.
Being the fact that they are all dead.

Why ARE we always talking about dead people anyway...?
C'mon, lets join the living heroes: Marcos, Mumia etc.

NovelGentry

29th May 2005, 23:28

Although not the case with Mumia, if it wasn't for the people were talking about there may very well not have been a Marcos. I don't think we have to be limited to either, past or present. We should avoid our past dominating our present in all forms (if you catch that reference you get a cookie). However, we need to realize too that without our past there wouldn't be a present, also in all forms. Even if you're talking about the reproduction of material necessity.

Generally speaking I agree with you, in that more light should be shed on our current contributors, although Mumia isn't exactly focused on class struggle as much as he is the prison system (certainly one can tie them together to a great degree). But much of what they have to offer has it's foundation in the past, and unfortunately, if we are to learn about what these people stand for, it may be best to learn first about what those who they did the same with stood for.

Many of us here, including myself, are still very new to much of this.

codyvo

30th May 2005, 00:12

Like a said about the issue involving Engels' homophobia, this behavior isn't forgiveable or acceptable because of the time period, that is like saying slave owners were forgiveable, they aren't. But this shouldn't take away from Marxs' teachings and beliefs, they are still just as valid he just had faults like anybody else.

NovelGentry

30th May 2005, 00:35

Ever seen trainspotting... the judge has a line that it may "explain your actions but it doesn't excuse them." This is all I'm saying.

codyvo

30th May 2005, 00:40

Saw the movie I don't remember that line but I do remember when he we went on that death binge and when he went in the toilet after his drugs, pretty trippy movie.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 01:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:24 PM

Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards. So what is the story? Was it true? Did he get his maid pregnant? If he did, then that is totally mideval nobility behavior. So what happened? What happend to his out of wed lock kid?

So he was a mideval bouguise?

These aren't typos... this is just... I don't know.
I think you still got the point. So was he bahaving like a dark age noble?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 01:55

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 29 2005, 10:22 PM
How does this have an impact on Marx's theory? It doesn't, and that is why it doesn't matter.
Oh yes it does.

Such a flawed person trying to build a very complex political system that need to run like a fine watch, is probably going to build a pretty poor watch.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 01:58

Originally posted by RedStarOv[email protected] 29 2005, 10:25 PM
He married a rich wife.
Wait a minute? Why was he so poor? He lived in a depressed part of London. His furniture was described as shabby. I don't understand. Rich? Why did he need money from Engles?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 02:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:50 PM
1871 Census -

Maitland Park Road, St Pancras (my great grandad was from St Pancras! :D)

Karl Marx Head 52 Dr Ph Author (Political) b. Trèves, Prussia
Jenny Marx Wife 56 b. Talzwedel, Prussia
Jenny Marx Daughter 25 b. Paris, France
Eleanor Marx Daughter 16 b. London, England
Helene Demeth Servant 46 b. St Wendel, Prussia
Why are you so proud? Don't you know nationalism is wrong?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 02:02

Anyhow can anyone describe the nature of the relationship between Marx and his maid?

Would she still have been paid her wages if she refused sex?

ZeroPain

30th May 2005, 02:08

I dont see the issue at all about the maid its not like he was documented beating her or anything, she may of had kids or something and a maid job would of been preaty good, much better than the factory.

ZeroPain

30th May 2005, 02:11

Why are you so proud? Don't you know nationalism is wrong?

Hes proud he has a conenction to marx.

Would she still have been paid her wages if she refused sex?

Are you jokeing or something because unless you can pull up a source saying marx had a sex servent then you need to shut the fuck up.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 02:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:11 AM

Why are you so proud? Don't you know nationalism is wrong?

Hes proud he has a conenction to marx.

Would she still have been paid her wages if she refused sex?

Are you jokeing or something because unless you can pull up a source saying marx had a sex servent then you need to shut the fuck up.
I'm afraid to bust your world view. Not only did he have sex, but the sex produced a child.

Now what were you saying about 'shut the fuck up'?

Can someone else help? What was the nature of thier relationship? Did Marx use his position as an employer to leverage sex with his maid?

RedStarOverChina

30th May 2005, 02:47

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 29 2005, 07:58 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 29 2005, 07:58 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 10:25 PM
He married a rich wife.
Wait a minute? Why was he so poor? He lived in a depressed part of London. His furniture was described as shabby. I don't understand. Rich? Why did he need money from Engles? [/b]
Marx was a ruthless spender who couldnt keep track of his money. He spent all his inheritence which was a considerable amount of money. After that he spent his wife's whole fortune (not long after they got married). It was said with the greatest irony that he does not know where all his money went.

Something similar happened to Einstein. One of the more intelligent men on earth, he would forget his distination when he takes the bus.

ZeroPain

30th May 2005, 03:58

Shut the Fuck Up

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 04:15

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+May 30 2005, 02:47 AM--> (RedStarOverChina @ May 30 2005, 02:47 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:58 PM

[email protected] 29 2005, 10:25 PM
He married a rich wife.
Wait a minute? Why was he so poor? He lived in a depressed part of London. His furniture was described as shabby. I don't understand. Rich? Why did he need money from Engles?
Marx was a ruthless spender who couldnt keep track of his money. He spent all his inheritence which was a considerable amount of money. After that he spent his wife's whole fortune (not long after they got married). It was said with the greatest irony that he does not know where all his money went.

Something similar happened to Einstein. One of the more intelligent men on earth, he would forget his distination when he takes the bus. [/b]
Wait a minute. This guy is an economic genius?

I think his personal problems may have affected his political ideas. Do you think so? I think so. I don't think his ideas were buffered from his economic trouble.

How about the maid? Do you know if he leveraged his position as an employer to gain sex?

Plus now I get the impression he was bouguouise.

BTW Einstein was not quite right with his most famous theories. Modern physicst are working to correct his errors based on his failings and prejudices.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 04:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:58 AM
Shut the Fuck Up
But I'm right ain't aye? He did have a maid, he did have sex with the maid, and he did have a child with the maid.

"Are you jokeing or something because unless you can pull up a source saying marx had a sex servent then you need to shut the fuck up. " - ZeroPain

How does this new information you may have just learned fit with "shut the fuck up"?

Monty Cantsin

30th May 2005, 04:27

I’ve read about the maid Marx even dedicated one of his books to her because she helped him on it and she did have a son though it’s unknown who the father was, it has been speculated that Marx was the father. But dose it really matter? What are you going to find out, that men sometimes have affaires?

On the question of Marx being a bourgeois, I think he was petty-bourgeois but does it really matter? I mean during Marx time the bourgeois class was the revolutionary class in most countries.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 16:28

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 30 2005, 02:00 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 30 2005, 02:00 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 09:50 PM
1871 Census -

Maitland Park Road, St Pancras (my great grandad was from St Pancras! :D)

Karl Marx Head 52 Dr Ph Author (Political) b. Trèves, Prussia
Jenny Marx Wife 56 b. Talzwedel, Prussia
Jenny Marx Daughter 25 b. Paris, France
Eleanor Marx Daughter 16 b. London, England
Helene Demeth Servant 46 b. St Wendel, Prussia
Why are you so proud? Don't you know nationalism is wrong? [/b]
Oh. My appologies. I thought there was a little geographic association and pride there.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 16:30

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 30 2005, 04:27 AM
I’ve read about the maid Marx even dedicated one of his books to her because she helped him on it and she did have a son though it’s unknown who the father was, it has been speculated that Marx was the father. But dose it really matter? What are you going to find out, that men sometimes have affaires?

On the question of Marx being a bourgeois, I think he was petty-bourgeois but does it really matter? I mean during Marx time the bourgeois class was the revolutionary class in most countries.
It matters a lot of Marx used his position as an employer to leverage sex.

That is 'giving' it to the proteleriat both literally and figuratively at the same time.

NovelGentry

30th May 2005, 18:21

It matters a lot of Marx used his position as an employer to leverage sex.

That is 'giving' it to the proteleriat both literally and figuratively at the same time.

To answer your question of whether or not Marx used his position as an employer to leverage sex, the answer is, I do not know. I would assume he would do no such thing.

Do you have evidence that he did?

ZeroPain

30th May 2005, 19:09

Ala Shut the Fuck Up

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 23:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:21 PM

It matters a lot of Marx used his position as an employer to leverage sex.

That is 'giving' it to the proteleriat both literally and figuratively at the same time.

To answer your question of whether or not Marx used his position as an employer to leverage sex, the answer is, I do not know. I would assume he would do no such thing.

Do you have evidence that he did?
I don't know what he did. That is why I'm asking.

What do you think when a boguise employer has sex with an employee? What is your first reaction? Mine is to think he leveraged his position for sex.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

30th May 2005, 23:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:09 PM
Ala Shut the Fuck Up
Why?

Did you know Marx had a maid? Did you know Marx had sex with his maid? Those are really pretty dumb questions because I KNOW you that did not know.

Now how does this make YOU look when you tell me to 'shut the fuck up'? I think it makes you look pretty stupid.

NovelGentry

30th May 2005, 23:54

I don't know what he did. That is why I'm asking.

I don't know what he did either, which is why I answered as such. Unfortunately the video cameras weren't rolling... oh wait, they hadn't been invented yet.

What do you think when a boguise employer has sex with an employee? What is your first reaction? Mine is to think he leveraged his position for sex.

Can you please learn how to spell bourgeois and bourgeoisie?

To answer your question, I don't particularly have a reaction that is separate from every other relationship under capitalism. His position is that of an economic consideration by the woman; the very same economic considerations are given to both marriage and sex outside of employer vs. employee.

Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.

And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive -- although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman -- the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage.

...

If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands--concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children's future--then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.

...

What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman's surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of their economic consequences. -- Frederik Engels

Invader Zim

31st May 2005, 01:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:48 PM
Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards. So what is the story? Was it true? Did he get his maid pregnant? If he did, then that is totally mideval nobility behavior. So what happened? What happend to his out of wed lock kid?
What? I think, (well actually upon reading a great many of your posts, I know) that you should read a little into medieval history, until the present day. Sleeping around, has been common through out, whether it be with a house servent or any other person.

In the same period, during America's years of slavery, many slave women were made pregant by masters.

Clarksist

31st May 2005, 02:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:49 PM
This type of thing is really starting to piss me off... everyone's on their high horse and is about ready to try and knock every past revolutionary off of it based on their own lack of knowledge, misunderstanding of what these people were, or bourgeoisie lies.

If you think for a minute that none of these people have been influenced by their times, you're wrong... and if you think that somehow you are above that, you are also wrong. It is extremely difficult to overcome all aspects of the current society you're living in, whether it be the reactionary mode of thinking, the lifestyle which entails, or just generally what you believe you are fond of.

We, revolutionaries or otherwise, will not be free from this until we are free from capitalism and the society we are currently in -- you do not have another option. These people recognized this and attempted to understand it and/or do something about it. All you do is sit here and attack them and others for it. How revolutionary you are.
Dude you really missed my point. We all romanticize these people far to much. Che, Marx, Engels, I agree with them on economic points. But I don't think they were all great people. I'm not badmouthing them, I'm just sticking some realism into the mix. They had flaws they were human, they aren't above us.

And to say I'm not "revolutionary" because I don't think Marx was perfect, then you truly don't know the term of "revolutionary". I'm also not saying I'm above the influences of our times. I'm sure there are things I'm not even aware I'm doing badly that generations before will surpass me by.

Romanticizing political figures is just ignorance.

synthesis

31st May 2005, 02:14

AMIC, you have one more post in this thread in which to substantiate the insinuations you have made here before I close it down for being pointless, irrelevant, and flat out stupid. If you can't produce evidence, you will be awarded a warning point for spamming, as well.

What do you think when a boguise employer has sex with an employee? What is your first reaction? Mine is to think he leveraged his position for sex.

Do you have evidence that Marx banged his maid?

Get on it.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

31st May 2005, 02:26

Originally posted by Enigma+May 31 2005, 01:05 AM--> (Enigma @ May 31 2005, 01:05 AM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 09:48 PM
Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards. So what is the story? Was it true? Did he get his maid pregnant? If he did, then that is totally mideval nobility behavior. So what happened? What happend to his out of wed lock kid?
What? I think, (well actually upon reading a great many of your posts, I know) that you should read a little into medieval history, until the present day. Sleeping around, has been common through out, whether it be with a house servent or any other person.

In the same period, during America's years of slavery, many slave women were made pregant by masters. [/b]
I don't know what you are saying?

Are you saying the Marx/maid relationship was a vassal or slave type relationship?

NovelGentry

31st May 2005, 02:55

Dude you really missed my point. We all romanticize these people far to much. Che, Marx, Engels, I agree with them on economic points.

Well no, I didn't miss your point. The problem is, a) I don't agree with your point b) the nature in which your point was established and professed. Let's review shall we...

Engels owned a factory.

True... he was, and as I pointed out, if not for this, it is doubtful he would have shown as much empathy as he did.

And now I hear Marx had a servant.

The cause of your disappointment and disagreement with this non-economic issue as you would have it, comes from your own ignorance of Marx's life. If you romanticized him, you did so because you refused to actually understand him, not because of anything "we" did together, or the leftist movement as a whole.

Che also slaughtered anyone he suspected of dissidence.

Bourgeois lie and partial misunderstanding. The fact that you take their word on it, or for that matter, misunderstand the nature of Che's discipline, is again, your own fault, not because of the left's romanticism of his character.

We romanticize these figures far too much, we aren't cynical enough about these people.

Maybe you do... speak for yourself.

Just because we might agree with them on economics, doesn't mean we agree on everything.

I disagree with Che on economics, and I completely agree with the level of discipline he exacted on his own soldiers, the people he was fighting, and the Batista opposition post-revolution.

But I don't think they were all great people.

I happen to think they were all great people... unfortunate for your "point that I missed" not because I romanticize them, but because I am very realistic about their nature, and about their actions. Which leads me to why you missed my point.

Despite their flaws, despite the actions of their day and the social and political norms, these people stood above this to a very extreme degree, both in theory and in action -- and that is what makes them revolutionary. You have shown no signs of doing so, furthermore, you have not even shown the capability of understanding this, instead you will merely "agree with their economics."

I'm not badmouthing them, I'm just sticking some realism into the mix. They had flaws they were human, they aren't above us.

Well generally speaking, they were above us. Were they something superhuman? Of course not, that'd just be plain silly. But on that grand spectrum of, "what impact have you left." They were far above us... above you... above me... and, although I cannot say for sure, I'm guessing above everyone on this message board.

Does this mean we cannot meet or exceed this? Of course not. But frankly, I would hope it is something we all strive to at the very least meet.

And to say I'm not "revolutionary" because I don't think Marx was perfect, then you truly don't know the term of "revolutionary".

Well now aren't we the great distorter. I never said you weren't revolutionary because you didn't think Marx was perfect... I'd challenge you to find where I did.

What you fail to see is this has nothing to do with being "perfect" or not, if such a thing is even measurable or obtainable.

I'm also not saying I'm above the influences of our times.

Fair enough.

Romanticizing political figures is just ignorance.

Agreed, so I'm wondering why you made any claim that "we" do this. I've certainly never taken part in it.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

31st May 2005, 02:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:14 AM
AMIC, you have one more post in this thread in which to substantiate the insinuations you have made here before I close it down for being pointless, irrelevant, and flat out stupid. If you can't produce evidence, you will be awarded a warning point for spamming, as well.

What do you think when a boguise employer has sex with an employee? What is your first reaction? Mine is to think he leveraged his position for sex.

Do you have evidence that Marx banged his maid?

Get on it.
Evidence he banged his maid?

Common, is it such common knowldge. Ask someone else. Ask another smart communist, see what they tell you.

Frankly I don't understand why YOU don't know this. Why don't you know this? It is so well documented that he shagged his maid.

I'm so sure he banged his maid that my question is: Did Marx use his position of authority as an employer to leverage sex?

Ask another communist, see what they tell you. Or I DARE YOU. Search the key words 'Marx maid'. To this I ask you. Where did she come from? What happened to her baby? What were her wages? I know the answers. If I tell you you won't believe me, so I ask you to find out for youself. Find the answers from some you will believe, then get back to me. It is quite a juicy tale and insight into the bourgeoisie behavior of Karl Marx. Not only does it drag Marx into the mud, it drags Engles too.

Evidence he shagged his maid? I'll give you a clue. Find out what Engles last words were.......

---------------Skip this until you do the research, you won't believe me anyhow--------------------------------------------

I'll tell you everything I know about his maid. I know you won't believe me, but here it is:

His maid was 'inherited/gifted' from Karl Marx mother. She did not receive any wages. In effect she was an indentured servant. She never leared to read or write. Never got anything 'progressive in nature' to improve herself from Marx. She wore second hand dresses even where there was money in the Marx home. Of course Marx was often broke, so it was little issue. She was has a child from Marx. Engles was claimed to be the father, but on his death bead he admitted Marx was the father. No what picture does this paint? Certainly not of one that is of a progressive person trying to liberate the opressed. Marx was himself the opressor.

NovelGentry

31st May 2005, 03:00

Do you have evidence that Marx banged his maid?

Get on it.

To my understanding it is fairly well known that the child of the maid was Marx's. If I'm not mistaken Engels took initial responsibility and upon Jenny and Marx's death revealed that it was indeed Marx's child.

To settle this once and for all. The maid, who's name I forget at the moment, was a very close family friend. She was not just some "servant" that he hired off the street... if I'm not mistaken she was actually buried with the rest of the family. The entire family considered her and her child, "one of them," or one would suspect from the accounts of their relationship.

NovelGentry

31st May 2005, 03:04

I'm so sure he banged his maid that my question is: Did Marx use his position of authority as an employer to leverage sex?

I've already answered this, and I've given you the same answer that I think anyone else here could rightfully give. I don't know.

My question to you is, do you have evidence of this, if you do share it. I've never seen any evidence that he has, and judging by the nature of the family relationship with the maid, as well as the nature of Marx, I cannot perceive he would do such a thing. So again, if you have evidence, by all means, share it.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

31st May 2005, 03:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:00 AM

Do you have evidence that Marx banged his maid?

Get on it.

To my understanding it is fairly well known that the child of the maid was Marx's. If I'm not mistaken Engels took initial responsibility and upon Jenny and Marx's death revealed that it was indeed Marx's child.

To settle this once and for all. The maid, who's name I forget at the moment, was a very close family friend. She was not just some "servant" that he hired off the street... if I'm not mistaken she was actually buried with the rest of the family. The entire family considered her and her child, "one of them," or one would suspect from the accounts of their relationship.
Why did Engles claim to be the father and keep the secret?

Where did she come from?

You see these questions will lead you to a place your not going to like.

NovelGentry

31st May 2005, 03:15

Why did Engles claim to be the father and keep the secret?

I don't know, I'm guessing cause Marx didn't want Jenny to know.

Where did she come from?

To the best of my recollection it was Jenny's family's maid.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

31st May 2005, 03:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:15 AM

Why did Engles claim to be the father and keep the secret?

I don't know, I'm guessing cause Marx didn't want Jenny to know.

Where did she come from?

To the best of my recollection it was Jenny's family's maid.
Would you believe me that she was 'gifted' from Marx's mother? As people are 'gifted' what does that bode for thier status? Looks to me like an indentured servant. Plus she did not receive any wages. If your put a bright spin on it, she did her duties out of 'friendship'. If you put a darker spin on it, she was in effect a indentured slave.

BING BING BING.... Yes he didn't want Jenny to know. That is not a plutonic threesome. That is not a 'friend' working as a maid. That is a poor and illeterate protelariat being taken advantage of by a bougouise intellectual. That is a poor servant whose labor is stolen and sexual favors being forced upon. I'm sure the Marxes loved her. Probably the same affection southern plantation owners had for thier devouted house slaves. In the end the house servants were still slaves and in the end the slaves all ran way, including the devoted house servants.

NovelGentry

31st May 2005, 03:30

Would you believe me that she was 'gifted' from Marx's mother? As people are 'gifted' what does that bode for thier status? Looks to me like an indentured servant. Plus she did not receive any wages. If your put a bright spin on it, she did her duties out of 'friendship'. If you put a darker spin on it, she was in effect a indentured slave.

No, I'm quite certain she came from Jenny's side and was a childhood friend or something of that nature.

BING BING BING.... Yes he didn't want Jenny to know. That is not a plutonic threesome. That is not a 'friend' working as a maid. That is a poor and illeterate protelariat being taken advantage of by a bougouise intellectual. That is a poor servant whose labor is stolen and sexual favors being forced upon. I'm sure the Marxes loved her. Probably the same affection southern plantation owners had for thier devouted house slaves. In the end the house servants were still slaves and in the end the slaves all ran way, including the devoted house servants.

No, that is a man scared to lose his wife because he loves her very much. If you were in any way aware of Marx and Jenny's relationship you'd probably have understood that... but then again, you weren't really looking to understand the truth when you came upon and dug into this information.

NovelGentry

31st May 2005, 03:36

http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column37a.html

Hey look, I found what ahh_money_is_comfort has been reading...

Seriously AMIC... even a cursory examination of first hand accounts would have disproved a great deal of this.

MKS

31st May 2005, 03:56

Che had sex with his (his families) maids and servants too, when he was younger.

I dont see what that has to do with thier legacies.

For all you cappies out there; Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slave, Bill Clinton had sex with his employee, as did FDR and numerous other presidents. Jesus had sex with a hooker, and Abraham had sex with his servant.

So, lets take all thier "contributions" to the world and null them because they had sex with someone.

When you cant attack thier policies of theories you attack their personal lives. Very classy and intelligent.

ZeroPain

31st May 2005, 04:37

Did you know Marx had a maid? Did you know Marx had sex with his maid? Those are really pretty dumb questions because I KNOW you that did not know.

Now how does this make YOU look when you tell me to 'shut the fuck up'? I think it makes you look pretty stupid.

Did you know Marx had a maid?

Yes infact i did.

Did you know Marx had sex with his maid?

Dont really care if he did

Now how does this make YOU look when you tell me to 'shut the fuck up'? I think it makes you look pretty stupid.

Im stupid :P

OleMarxco

31st May 2005, 11:07

Sorry to break into this oh-so-very-Important-thread-of-discussion, but...
WHO GIVES A SHIT!?
Perhaps they WERE hypocrites, and I won't budge fer'at, their THEORY were on our side, the worker's side. ARR! 'Right thurr. Right, perhaps you'll tell Marx and Engels to "Practice what you preach", maybe, you will say, but I won't care for icons and leaders (So fuck 'em if that was true), I care what Communism is and how it will be. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. Communism is -NOT- a fuckin' celebrity magazine, GET OVER IT ALREADEY :angry:

These threads need to stop comin'. If this is some sort of lame attempts to try to smear us, your efforts have come to futile :P

Invader Zim

31st May 2005, 15:35

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 31 2005, 02:26 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 31 2005, 02:26 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:05 AM

[email protected] 29 2005, 09:48 PM
Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards. So what is the story? Was it true? Did he get his maid pregnant? If he did, then that is totally mideval nobility behavior. So what happened? What happend to his out of wed lock kid?
What? I think, (well actually upon reading a great many of your posts, I know) that you should read a little into medieval history, until the present day. Sleeping around, has been common through out, whether it be with a house servent or any other person.

In the same period, during America's years of slavery, many slave women were made pregant by masters.
I don't know what you are saying?

Are you saying the Marx/maid relationship was a vassal or slave type relationship? [/b]
No thats what you are saying, I'm saying that employers of domestic staff sleeping with the 'help' is not uncommon, now, in Marx's time or in the medieval period. Attempting to demonise Marx on that score is ridiculous.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st June 2005, 02:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:30 AM

Would you believe me that she was 'gifted' from Marx's mother? As people are 'gifted' what does that bode for thier status? Looks to me like an indentured servant. Plus she did not receive any wages. If your put a bright spin on it, she did her duties out of 'friendship'. If you put a darker spin on it, she was in effect a indentured slave.

No, I'm quite certain she came from Jenny's side and was a childhood friend or something of that nature.

BING BING BING.... Yes he didn't want Jenny to know. That is not a plutonic threesome. That is not a 'friend' working as a maid. That is a poor and illeterate protelariat being taken advantage of by a bougouise intellectual. That is a poor servant whose labor is stolen and sexual favors being forced upon. I'm sure the Marxes loved her. Probably the same affection southern plantation owners had for thier devouted house slaves. In the end the house servants were still slaves and in the end the slaves all ran way, including the devoted house servants.

No, that is a man scared to lose his wife because he loves her very much. If you were in any way aware of Marx and Jenny's relationship you'd probably have understood that... but then again, you weren't really looking to understand the truth when you came upon and dug into this information.
Ok I didn't expect you would believe me. But I'm telling you that the maid was a gift from Marx's mother. This person was illiterate. Why would bouguise be friends with a poor illiterate? They don't become friends when they are children let alone met each other on the playground.

Che had sex with the maids too? Oh my gosh, what are these bouguise doing to my revolution?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st June 2005, 02:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:07 AM
Sorry to break into this oh-so-very-Important-thread-of-discussion, but...
WHO GIVES A SHIT!?
Perhaps they WERE hypocrites, and I won't budge fer'at, their THEORY were on our side, the worker's side. ARR! 'Right thurr. Right, perhaps you'll tell Marx and Engels to "Practice what you preach", maybe, you will say, but I won't care for icons and leaders (So fuck 'em if that was true), I care what Communism is and how it will be. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. Communism is -NOT- a fuckin' celebrity magazine, GET OVER IT ALREADEY :angry:

These threads need to stop comin'. If this is some sort of lame attempts to try to smear us, your efforts have come to futile :P
If the great intellectual Marx can not be a good communist, then how do you expect average people to do better?

NovelGentry

1st June 2005, 03:10

Ok I didn't expect you would believe me.

Well no, I'm not going to believe you when there is plenty of other sources (firsthand) evidence, interviews, etc, that prove otherwise.

But I'm telling you that the maid was a gift from Marx's mother.

No, she came from Jenny's side. Unless you are going to pull some kind of technicality like ,"Jenny's mom is Marx's mom too cause they were married," this statement is utterly wrong.

This person was illiterate.

No doubt, a lot of people were then. I would suspect anyone who is a maid to doubly be stuck in that situation.

Why would bouguise be friends with a poor illiterate?

The "friend" relationship is something I'm not completely sure about, other than references that she was a "friend" of some sorts. Whether she was Jenny's friend, or a friend of the family (maybe her mom was a maid and she grew up with Jenny)... etc..

They don't become friends when they are children let alone met each other on the playground.

Again, I'm not completely sure what her "friend" relationship was, other than that the term is mentioned in repeated sources as to the nature of of the maid's relationship.

Che had sex with the maids too?

Probably... are you implying you could never be sexually attracted to a maid?

Oh my gosh, what are these bouguise doing to my revolution?

I'm not sure what sexual relations has anything to do with your relationship to the means of production.

MKS

1st June 2005, 05:49

Che had sex with the maids too?

There is a section in John Lee Anderson's, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, where he talks about Che being schooled in sexuality by one of the family maids. It was stated that the maids were indeginous or poor mestizas (not upper class Spanish like Che and his family) which made them easier to "seduce". however Che was only 14 or 15 at the time, and very distant from any socialist or communist ideology.

See page 35

synthesis

1st June 2005, 06:24

If I tell you you won't believe me, so I ask you to find out for youself.

All I asked for was a source, a corroboration or simply some kind of substantiation beyond your own words. You're lucky NG stepped in on your behalf.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

1st June 2005, 07:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:24 AM

If I tell you you won't believe me, so I ask you to find out for youself.

All I asked for was a source, a corroboration or simply some kind of substantiation beyond your own words. You're lucky NG stepped in on your behalf.
Fine don't believe me, but imagine this:

Jenny from bouguise family.

Marx from bouguise family.

Why would these people be childhood friends with someone poor and illterate?
Why would bouguise parents let thier children be friends with someone of a poor and illiterate class?

Socialistpenguin

1st June 2005, 10:04

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 1 2005, 06:47 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 1 2005, 06:47 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 06:24 AM

If I tell you you won't believe me, so I ask you to find out for youself.

All I asked for was a source, a corroboration or simply some kind of substantiation beyond your own words. You're lucky NG stepped in on your behalf.
Fine don't believe me, but imagine this:

Jenny from bouguise family.

Marx from bouguise family.

Why would these people be childhood friends with someone poor and illterate?
Why would bouguise parents let thier children be friends with someone of a poor and illiterate class? [/b]
Again, you are posting NOTHING of substance: you are not providing any evidence, you are just shouting people down who disagree or try to disprove you. Thankfully, NovelGentry posted that link, even if it was HORRENDOUSLY biased in favour of the right. So please, we IMPLORE you, find some facts to back up your claims with unbiased and irrefutable proof, instead of just shouting people down

Forward Union

1st June 2005, 10:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:43 AM
If the great intellectual Marx can not be a good communist, then how do you expect average people to do better?
How?? like I do. I don't idolise Marx at all, and to be honest, I don't care who he shagged or how many women he got pregnant, it simply doesn't bother me.

It wouldn't mater if Communism was established by an 18th century racist, chauvinistic, billionaire, slave owner, because it is a good idea, that contradicts these injustices. Of course, it makes the man a hypocrite, and in no way makes him a good person, just an evil person wit ha bad idea.

So what if Marx was a fucking hypocrite I don't give a shit, its not my problem. It seems that you can no longer attack the ideology he formulated, so now you see the need to attack him, despite it having no relevance to communist movements in the 21st century.

NovelGentry

1st June 2005, 16:18

Fine don't believe me, but imagine this:

Jenny from bouguise family.

Marx from bouguise family.

Why would these people be childhood friends with someone poor and illterate?
Why would bouguise parents let thier children be friends with someone of a poor and illiterate class?

And again, I don't know the exact relationship -- other than the vague descriptions of first hand accounts. But I trust those first hand accounts a lot more than you or that anti-castro cuban's blog or whatever. So whatever the specifics of the "friend" relationship were, I do not know, but we understand that in some way the relationship between the maid and Jenny and/or Jenny's family was a well to do one.

Your source can't even get where she came from right, why do you suspect me to believe he has any knowledge about the nature of her circumstances prior to when she went to London with the Marx family?

Also, even your source makes it quite apparent she's burried with the family -- afterall, that is why he didn't spit/piss (or whatever) on the grave, is it not? I don't know that many people who bury "just maids" in their family tomb.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

2nd June 2005, 03:16

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+Jun 1 2005, 10:14 AM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ Jun 1 2005, 10:14 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 01:43 AM
If the great intellectual Marx can not be a good communist, then how do you expect average people to do better?
How?? like I do. I don't idolise Marx at all, and to be honest, I don't care who he shagged or how many women he got pregnant, it simply doesn't bother me.

It wouldn't mater if Communism was established by an 18th century racist, chauvinistic, billionaire, slave owner, because it is a good idea, that contradicts these injustices. Of course, it makes the man a hypocrite, and in no way makes him a good person, just an evil person wit ha bad idea.

So what if Marx was a fucking hypocrite I don't give a shit, its not my problem. It seems that you can no longer attack the ideology he formulated, so now you see the need to attack him, despite it having no relevance to communist movements in the 21st century. [/b]
Oh contrare.

There was something wrong with the man's brain. His brain and his ideas were influenced by his lack of ability to hold on to money, his indifference to lower classes, his reckless economics, and his total lack of experience with production and human magement. A real communist system is going to be developed by people who are genuine about helping society and the protelariat. That is not Marx. To Marx your a clay toy to be poked, shaped, and molded. Your just a science experiment for person who really doesn't care about human suffering. It was just an intellectual game to him.

NovelGentry

2nd June 2005, 04:05

It was just an intellectual game to him.

While I don't think it was *just* an intellectual game, a good part of his arguments against his peers/contemporaries was. But hey, he won.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

4th June 2005, 02:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:05 AM

It was just an intellectual game to him.

While I don't think it was *just* an intellectual game, a good part of his arguments against his peers/contemporaries was. But hey, he won.
Did Marx do more than write and talk?

NovelGentry

4th June 2005, 06:05

Did Marx do more than write and talk?

He appears to have been moderately sexually active.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

4th June 2005, 23:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:05 AM

Did Marx do more than write and talk?

He appears to have been moderately sexually active.
No no no, I mean for helping to free the protelariat? Not 'giving' it to the protelariat.

NovelGentry

5th June 2005, 02:10

Yes, read about his activity in the first international.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

5th June 2005, 02:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:10 AM
Yes, read about his activity in the first international.
You mean he picked up a gun and shot a bougouise?

Hegemonicretribution

5th June 2005, 14:49

AMIC I congratlate you on your research, even if the source is tailored more to suit your needs (I do it all the time). However, whilst this has been a very enjoyable thread to read (due to how it has been sensationalised, moderately well by yourself), you know none of us can answer your actual question.

Around ths time there were plenty of well meaning bourgeois idealists. In fact they were looked down upon (by Marx as well). These Anarcho-Bourgeois were in a position to "help the proletariat" as it were, because they had money and power. Nowadays SHELTER helps homeless people. MIND, the mentally disabled, and the RSPCA, mistreated gerbils. It is what I would see a favourable trait in someone, to want to help somebody in a position of disadvantage. The ideas written about were not about charity, but a complete shift, and redstribution of wealth. From lots for the few and little for the many, to the more logical idea of more than enough for everyone.

Would Ghandi stand for nothing if bought tickets to a boxing match? Hypocrisy should be cut down on, but it still prevails. I am documented as drinking coca-cola right up until 14 years of age, would I be shunned from a truly left society?

Here is a question to you AMIC Have you ever cheated on anybody? I did once, and I am sure many people here have as well. Has that frazzled my brain and clouded my political ideas?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

6th June 2005, 00:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:49 PM
AMIC I congratlate you on your research, even if the source is tailored more to suit your needs (I do it all the time). However, whilst this has been a very enjoyable thread to read (due to how it has been sensationalised, moderately well by yourself), you know none of us can answer your actual question.

Around ths time there were plenty of well meaning bourgeois idealists. In fact they were looked down upon (by Marx as well). These Anarcho-Bourgeois were in a position to "help the proletariat" as it were, because they had money and power. Nowadays SHELTER helps homeless people. MIND, the mentally disabled, and the RSPCA, mistreated gerbils. It is what I would see a favourable trait in someone, to want to help somebody in a position of disadvantage. The ideas written about were not about charity, but a complete shift, and redstribution of wealth. From lots for the few and little for the many, to the more logical idea of more than enough for everyone.

Would Ghandi stand for nothing if bought tickets to a boxing match? Hypocrisy should be cut down on, but it still prevails. I am documented as drinking coca-cola right up until 14 years of age, would I be shunned from a truly left society?

Here is a question to you AMIC Have you ever cheated on anybody? I did once, and I am sure many people here have as well. Has that frazzled my brain and clouded my political ideas?
Gandhi? At a boxing match? That is just more intellectual masturbation common among communist. Using such esoteric points that don't mean a thing to make a point.

So who do you think is a better starship captain? Kirk or Picard?

Hegemonicretribution

6th June 2005, 01:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:53 PM
Gandhi? At a boxing match? That is just more intellectual masturbation common among communist. Using such esoteric points that don't mean a thing to make a point.

So who do you think is a better starship captain? Kirk or Picard?
I was speaking in favour of you recently, thinking you would keep things above a certain level, but if you dismiss what was at least an attemp at a point (I know it must be hard with all the lefties doing the same to you), with an insult then what hope is there for serious discussion. I was finding this interesting and not too childish, but hell if you want to be like that, I won't join you, its not what I am about or here for .

I believe it was (if not the best) an analogy made to better demonstrate what I suppose was an influenced question. As you term this as intelectual masturbation (for the record I was trying to simplify here, and did not feel intellectually fulfilled by, nor get off too the aforementioned example) I will just ask this question again in plain English: Because a person is not without flaws, are all good intentions and actions nullified?

I believe I may of asked you several other questions, although I can rephrase them if you think I am getting too much pleasure out of them :). Please try and be civil as I am.

In answer to your question: I don't know which one is which, I believe it is Star Trek to which you refer although I neither own a television, or watch it. I would be glad for (although not interested in) an answer that you can perhaps provide for me. This would be best via PM though as I do not thinnk it is appropriate for this thread.

Hegemonicretribution

6th June 2005, 01:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 11:53 PM
Using such esoteric points that don't mean a thing to make a point.

Just out of interest, and I do appologse if I am being pedantic, I was wondering first of all how you can use a point, especially a meaningless one, to make a point? Also in what way is is the Ghandi reference esoteric? I thought it was fairly accessable, that is why I used it.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

7th June 2005, 21:42

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Jun 6 2005, 01:37 AM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Jun 6 2005, 01:37 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 11:53 PM
Using such esoteric points that don't mean a thing to make a point.

Just out of interest, and I do appologse if I am being pedantic, I was wondering first of all how you can use a point, especially a meaningless one, to make a point? Also in what way is is the Ghandi reference esoteric? I thought it was fairly accessable, that is why I used it. [/b]
How about using a situtation where you know for sure what Gandhi did, instead of a make believe where you guess at what you THINK Gandhi will do. Then use the real situtate to make your point. Using that situtate where you use Gandhi and what you THINK he will do is meaningless, your guessing.

Hegemonicretribution

8th June 2005, 04:06

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 7 2005, 08:42 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 7 2005, 08:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:37 AM

[email protected] 5 2005, 11:53 PM
Using such esoteric points that don't mean a thing to make a point.

Just out of interest, and I do appologse if I am being pedantic, I was wondering first of all how you can use a point, especially a meaningless one, to make a point? Also in what way is is the Ghandi reference esoteric? I thought it was fairly accessable, that is why I used it.
How about using a situtation where you know for sure what Gandhi did, instead of a make believe where you guess at what you THINK Gandhi will do. Then use the real situtate to make your point. Using that situtate where you use Gandhi and what you THINK he will do is meaningless, your guessing. [/b]
I wasn't guessing at what he will do, I expect him to rot. It was a hypothetical situation. The reason I used this was because if I had used a real situation, then according to the logic I suspect you are using, and am questioning (the example is to find this out) it would do no more than discredit Ghandi also. (That could be done, but it is for another thread) The Che sleeping with servants would be far more appropriate if that was what I was trying to achieve, but we know where that example led.

You appear to have answered a question (or not answered it as the case may be) with a question. I asked how my point was esoteric. I also asked what you meant when you said I used a meaningless point to make a point, although I assume it was just a slip, i happens.

I will again restate the actual question, the main one raised by this thread. Because a person is not without flaws, are all good intentions and actions nullified?

Tha is essentially what it comes down to. My personal opinion is no, however it does mean they shouldn't be idolised in the way that some are.

Raisa

8th June 2005, 22:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:48 PM
Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards.
He made his contribution. Thats why its stupid to let someone be your hero. Just take what they did good and run with it...

The founding fathers outright had slaves!

Raisa

8th June 2005, 22:47

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Jun 4 2005, 10:09 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Jun 4 2005, 10:09 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 06:05 AM

Did Marx do more than write and talk?

He appears to have been moderately sexually active.
No no no, I mean for helping to free the protelariat? Not 'giving' it to the protelariat. [/b]
:lol:

ahhh_money_is_comfort

9th June 2005, 16:05

Originally posted by Raisa+Jun 8 2005, 10:45 PM--> (Raisa @ Jun 8 2005, 10:45 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 08:48 PM
Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards.
He made his contribution. Thats why its stupid to let someone be your hero. Just take what they did good and run with it...

The founding fathers outright had slaves! [/b]
That is a good point. I have never claimed that US Jeffersonian democracy was free or fair by my standards. But don't you also agree no matter how bad US democracy is, it does not make communism right?

Raisa

10th June 2005, 00:17

Nah, youre real cool, but I disagree with you on that one.

Beacuse if the working class was really in power, I dont think they would tolerate a class existing that is based on taking their money from them and giving them little wages.....do you?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

12th June 2005, 01:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:17 AM
Nah, youre real cool, but I disagree with you on that one.

Beacuse if the working class was really in power, I dont think they would tolerate a class existing that is based on taking their money from them and giving them little wages.....do you?
Of course not. I don't tollerate working for low wages or do I think anyone else wood. Is that happening in free market countries?

ahhh_money_is_comfort

12th June 2005, 01:13

Originally posted by Raisa+Jun 8 2005, 10:45 PM--> (Raisa @ Jun 8 2005, 10:45 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 08:48 PM
Dude he was a total bouguise. Even by his times standards.
He made his contribution. Thats why its stupid to let someone be your hero. Just take what they did good and run with it...

The founding fathers outright had slaves! [/b]
Yup. Take what they did good and run with it. Right?

workersunity

14th June 2005, 06:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:49 PM

Engels owned a factory. And now I hear Marx had a servant. Che also slaughtered anyone he suspected of dissidence.

We romanticize these figures far too much, we aren't cynical enough about these people. Just because we might agree with them on economics, doesn't mean we agree on everything.

A) servants don't create capital -- given the way economies have run since Marx's time and up to now, it'd be extremely difficult at best to determine what is to come of services labor. If we had a system that worked on labor time, it'd be a lot easier, but we didn't then, and we don't now.

B) Engels' factory was actually his fathers -- and without him having entered into that position he probably wouldn't have acquired much of the empathy he had for the working class.

C) I also heard Che killed people with AIDS...

This type of thing is really starting to piss me off... everyone's on their high horse and is about ready to try and knock every past revolutionary off of it based on their own lack of knowledge, misunderstanding of what these people were, or bourgeoisie lies.

If you think for a minute that none of these people have been influenced by their times, you're wrong... and if you think that somehow you are above that, you are also wrong. It is extremely difficult to overcome all aspects of the current society you're living in, whether it be the reactionary mode of thinking, the lifestyle which entails, or just generally what you believe you are fond of.

We, revolutionaries or otherwise, will not be free from this until we are free from capitalism and the society we are currently in -- you do not have another option. These people recognized this and attempted to understand it and/or do something about it. All you do is sit here and attack them and others for it. How revolutionary you are.
*clap* *clap*

very good post, took the words right out of my mouth

Red Heretic

14th June 2005, 06:57

As Lenin i Stalin stated, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ideology of Marxism.

Let's pretend you are an absolute moron (which you actually are, but let's set that aside for a second), and didn't know that if you jumped off of a building that you would fall to the ground and die. In your ignorance, you climb to the top of the Empire State building and decide to see what happens. However, Karl Marx stops you and teaches you about physical science, and explain why if you step off of the building you will fall and die. What will you say? "Hmm... that's a very logical and scientific understanding of what will happen if I jump off of this building" or "NO! FUCK YOU! YOU'RE KARL MARX, AND YOU SLEPT WITH A MAID"

Grow up.

romanm

14th June 2005, 09:01

marxism iis a scisnce, marx's biography doesn't matter. most of the 1st world posters here are probably richer than marx was.

ahhh_money_is_comfort

16th June 2005, 00:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:57 AM
As Lenin i Stalin stated, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ideology of Marxism.

Let's pretend you are an absolute moron (which you actually are, but let's set that aside for a second), and didn't know that if you jumped off of a building that you would fall to the ground and die. In your ignorance, you climb to the top of the Empire State building and decide to see what happens. However, Karl Marx stops you and teaches you about physical science, and explain why if you step off of the building you will fall and die. What will you say? "Hmm... that's a very logical and scientific understanding of what will happen if I jump off of this building" or "NO! FUCK YOU! YOU'RE KARL MARX, AND YOU SLEPT WITH A MAID"

Grow up.
Did Karl Marx study or receive a science degree? Which branch of science did he receive his training?