Karl Marx and the Stock Markets

[Rakshas]

In, Francis Wheen's new biography on Karl Marx, "Karl Marx: A Life" (W.W. Nortons 2000), it is said that Karl Marx was shareholder of newspaper company, The Industrial and had invested £4 in buying its shares. In his letter to his acquaintance, Lion Philips, Marx says "I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every
imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise) are forced up to a
quite unreasonable level and then, for most part, collapse. In this way,
I have made over £400 now that the complexity of the political situation
affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It’s a type of
operation that makes small demands on one’s time, and it’s worth while
running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money."

So, while Marx was bearting capitalism, he made a fortune on shares! :o

Any comments?

[Leo]

I've heard of that before, It is not a new idea, but I doubt that it is true. It is a pretty well known fact that Marx almost lived in poverty line and if it wasn't for Engels he would have starved to death!

I don't know if this is true but I've read somewhere that his mother and his other close relatives constantly told him: "You're always writing about Capital, why don't you earn some?"

[Janus]

So, while Marx was bearting capitalism, he made a fortune on shares!
How did he make a fortune? Investing in shares to support your family doesn't make you a capitalist or bourgeois.

[Zero]

I suppose the next preconception we should start working on is that Communism automaticly makes you a poor person...

[bolshevik butcher]

Please let's not pretend that Marx was rich, he died in poverty yet had one of the greatest understandings of economics ever. He could of been a millionare probably with his understanding of the way the system functioned.

[Shredder]

He made a little money off of it but eventually ended up making bad investments and lost it.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:36 PM
Any comments?
Just one:

http://www.merchlackey.com/demostreams/1131387133.jpg

...don't let the system pimp you

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:04 PM

So, while Marx was bearting capitalism, he made a fortune on shares!
How did he make a fortune? Investing in shares to dupport your family doesn't make you a capitalist or bourgeois.
Who owns the means of production then?

[Janus]

Who owns the means of production then?
The bourgeois but Marx wasn't a member of that class, obviously.

[RebelDog]

I'm aware the bourgeois own the means of production. The question was posted to prompt a reply which described how owning shares is not owning the 'means of production'. I cannot myself see how owning shares does not put one in the bourgeois class. If you own shares you own part of the machinery of production.

[Janus]

It depends on what shares you own and how much you own.

If you own a few shares in a cartoon company, how is that owning a portion of the means of production? What about bank accounts, etc.? Just 'cause someone owns one makes them bourgeois immediately?

[bolshevik butcher]

I would say that Marx was a petty bourgoirse, well his father certianly was.

[Brekisonphilous]

Even marx will resort to capitalism to support himself. sometimes you gonna do what you gotta do.

[RevolverNo9]

Marx was as middle class as anything. There's no two ways about it. The irony was - as one of the world's greatest ever economists - how bad he was at handling money! Furthermore, the poverty-stricken Marx was only able to subsist and er, develop the theories of Capital because of the support he received from a bourgeois factor-owner! The name of this particular capitalist was, of course, Fredreich Engels.

Funny that.

[rebelworker]

I think a lesson can be learned from recognising someones ability to analyse an economic system, which he did very well, and aknowledging the privaledged conditions that he was brought up with(having a factory owner supporting your intelectual persuits is privalledged) that had an effect on his analysis of change, which was defenitly partially flawed and based in eleitism.

Individuals are not immune from burgeoise mentality jut bcause they declaire themselves on the "side of the workers", something people need to consider more in the "revolutionary movement".

[RevolverNo9]

Yes - the fact remains, considering the economic conditions of the time, historical materialism and the Marxian analysis of the bourgeois economy simply could not have been carried out by a member of the working class! Only someone with the neccessary education and prvilieges could carry out such observation of material reality at that time. This perhaps, of course, explains Marx more dubious strengths as an active revolutionary (and his undoubtedly authoritarian nature).

Now of course, things may be different. With the rise of the proletariat from the devastating conditions that have preceded, we - hopefully - can look forward to an era of true praxis, where thoery is actively applied from a working-class perspective. If the Marxist project has a future, it is in this alone.

[Marx_was_right!]

Marx had no choice but to support capitalism to support himself. I find it enathama some people consider he somehow was acting 'evil'. He was just trying to use the system around him to support himself. And good on him for releiving the cappie bastards of some dough!