Karl Marx's memorial has been vandilised Watch

Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Karl Marx's memorial has been vandalised! It looks like someone has had a go at it with a hammer. It's a Grade I-listed monument; this is no way to treat our heritage. @MarxLibrary @HeritageCrime We will repair as far as possible.

https://twitter.com/HighgateCemeter/...12612683542529


:rip:
More annoyed that it is a historic monument being damaged than the its desecrating a particular figure's memory. The day we cannot go to Highgate and look at the cool headstones and tombs will be a sad day indeed.
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by Tootles)
Our heritage?
He lived in this country for a large chunk of his life and did most of his important work here documenting capitalism.
1
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
Are his remains there, physically speaking?
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by zhog)
Are his remains there, physically speaking?
Thinking about digging him up?
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
He lived in this country for a large chunk of his life and did most of his important work here documenting capitalism.
You've been to the Red Lion, haven't you?
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Thinking about digging him up?
Yeah, flog his bones to the Marxists on e-bay for a fortune. That would be some ending to his 'documenting' of capitalism.

No kidding, I visited a so-called 'pantheon' once where several historical characters were supposed to be and they weren't. McDonnell could have him in a cupboard, for all I know.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by zhog)
You've been to the Red Lion, haven't you?
He loved his beer as well.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 20
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
He lived in this country for a large chunk of his life and did most of his important work here documenting capitalism.
That isn't our heritage though. Also, define his important work?

Has anyone here even read The Communist Manifesto? He can have done as grand a job as you like "documenting capitalism", but his philosophies were truly evil.
reply
HucktheForde
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(Original post by Tootles)
Our heritage?
you have to pay to enter highgate cemetary. That thing is bringing money in to pay for maintenance for hundreds of other graves.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(Original post by Tootles)
Has anyone here even read The Communist Manifesto? He can have done as grand a job as you like "documenting capitalism", but his philosophies were truly evil.
Like "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains"? How exactly is that 'evil'.

There's an awful lot of right wing nonsense on this thread. Marx was a powerful, insightful thinker who analysed the economic situation of his times more deeply and accurately than any other of his day. He is still widely admired by serious economists on both right and left and has, for example, often featured positively in The Economist (centre-right and hardly a Marxist rag), the NY Times and other bastions of Trot radicalism, haha. The fact that his ideas led to massive upheavals is probably unsurprising, the fact that the results of those upheavals was sometimes very negative is also hardly unpredictable, given human nature and what happens in revolutions. None of that means that Marx shouldn't be admired as a leading thinker of the 19th century. It's actually pretty poor that Britain doesn't honour him more, we could for example have a Karl Marx Day, or similar, without suddenly becoming a collapsed Stalinist state.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
(Original post by zhog)
No kidding, I visited a so-called 'pantheon' once where several historical characters were supposed to be and they weren't. McDonnell could have him in a cupboard, for all I know.
You visited 'a pantheon once'. Are you talking about The Pantheon by any chance, the one in Paris?
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 20
#52
Report 1 week ago
#52
(Original post by HucktheForde)
you have to pay to enter highgate cemetary. That thing is bringing money in to pay for maintenance for hundreds of other graves.
When I went into Highgate Cemetry, it was free. But then, that was 23 years ago. Either way, that's not really adding to our heritage; it's maintaining tombs. How exactly is gloryfing the dead "heritage"? Marx's own words on this are quite clear: In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.

(Note: I am not saying we shouldn't honour the dead.)

(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Like "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains"? How exactly is that 'evil'.

There's an awful lot of right wing nonsense on this thread. Marx was a powerful, insightful thinker who analysed the economic situation of his times more deeply and accurately than any other of his day. He is still widely admired by serious economists on both right and left and has, for example, often featured positively in The Economist (centre-right and hardly a Marxist rag), the NY Times and other bastions of Trot radicalism, haha. The fact that his ideas led to massive upheavals is probably unsurprising, the fact that the results of those upheavals was sometimes very negative is also hardly unpredictable, given human nature and what happens in revolutions. None of that means that Marx shouldn't be admired as a leading thinker of the 19th century. It's actually pretty poor that Britain doesn't honour him more, we could for example have a Karl Marx Day, or similar, without suddenly becoming a collapsed Stalinist state.
How about abolition of the family? Or removal of the individual's right to personal possessions or wealth? Marx wrote at length of how the "modern" family was founded on the acquisition and growth of wealth, and how parents exploit their children; how children are to receive their entire education from the state and their parents are to have no hand in it at all? He also speaks of how the men of wealthy families are essentially doomed to seduce other women or use their money on prostitutes.

See what's already happening in our country. Parents are forced by circumstance into putting their children into the care of others from an increasingly early age. When I was a child, one might go to a day nursery for a year or so prior to starting school, so they could get used to it (but many didn't go), but now it's quite common for parents to take children as young as two into nursery, especially where I live. Children are being stripped of individuality by the state, and it's observable by anyone with eyes that they don't have the respect or love for their parents that they did when I was a child.

And then, in the same chapter (chapter 2), Marx writes: The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. What's he saying? Bear in mind that his work is philosophical and ideological, and then take note that he says that charges made ... are not deserving of serious examination. He's saying quite literally that anyone who thinks differently isn't to be taken note of; they are to be ignored. Or, more plainly, "I'm right and everybody else is wrong". He doesn't want his own work examined by people who disagree.

Yes, Marx said some true things. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. Yes, and that's a bad thing, but there are other ways of putting that right than doing away with capital completely. Stop it being a social power, take away its power to influence. Doing away with capital and wealth completely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's all Communism is when you get down to it; it's an overreaction to the notion of radix malorum est cupiditas*.

*
Spoiler:
Show
Greed is the root of all evil.
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#53
(Original post by Tootles)
That isn't our heritage though. Also, define his important work?
A historicaly important figure lived, worked and died in this country and there is a tomb stone to mark where he died. It is that simple.

He has an entire philosophical school named after him and is one of the founding fathers of sociology. Almost everyone practises historical materialism to some degree.

The Communist Manifesto's actual demands were mostly social democratic ones and we have implemented a lot of them in the 20th century. Education for children up to the level of secondary education and banning of child labour is hardly Stalinism is it?

So yeah, I have read the communist manifesto and there was nary a mention of gulags.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 1 week ago
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#54
(Original post by Tootles)
When I went into Highgate Cemetry, it was free. But then, that was 23 years ago. Either way, that's not really adding to our heritage; it's maintaining tombs. How exactly is gloryfing the dead "heritage"? Marx's own words on this are quite clear: In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.

(Note: I am not saying we shouldn't honour the dead.)


How about abolition of the family? Or removal of the individual's right to personal possessions or wealth? Marx wrote at length of how the "modern" family was founded on the acquisition and growth of wealth, and how parents exploit their children; how children are to receive their entire education from the state and their parents are to have no hand in it at all? He also speaks of how the men of wealthy families are essentially doomed to seduce other women or use their money on prostitutes.

See what's already happening in our country. Parents are forced by circumstance into putting their children into the care of others from an increasingly early age. When I was a child, one might go to a day nursery for a year or so prior to starting school, so they could get used to it (but many didn't go), but now it's quite common for parents to take children as young as two into nursery, especially where I live. Children are being stripped of individuality by the state, and it's observable by anyone with eyes that they don't have the respect or love for their parents that they did when I was a child.

And then, in the same chapter (chapter 2), Marx writes: The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. What's he saying? Bear in mind that his work is philosophical and ideological, and then take note that he says that charges made ... are not deserving of serious examination. He's saying quite literally that anyone who thinks differently isn't to be taken note of; they are to be ignored. Or, more plainly, "I'm right and everybody else is wrong". He doesn't want his own work examined by people who disagree.

Yes, Marx said some true things. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. Yes, and that's a bad thing, but there are other ways of putting that right than doing away with capital completely. Stop it being a social power, take away its power to influence. Doing away with capital and wealth completely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's all Communism is when you get down to it; it's an overreaction to the notion of radix malorum est cupiditas*.

*
Spoiler:
Show
Greed is the root of all evil.


Yes Marx had views on family arrangements and where they came from. The fact you have to position yourself against Marx and Engels dangerous ideas on family just justifies why these people are our heritage. Discussions on what family is and where it comes from is totally normal in anthropology, where there is a concurrences that the nuclear family is far from the only arrangement of child rearing humans have practised.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nuclear-family

Are these scientists guilty of the same sins as Marx? It is also now a very common belief that the nuclear family relationship, especially in Marx's time, was very bad for women and children where the patriarch of the family could exercise tyranny over his family members. Again the sort of things Marx and Engels wrote about the family came into prominence in the 20th century with the feminist waves.

So what you are saying is the man is not our heritage because you do not like or agree with his ideas (which are supposed to be non existent and inconsequential)? And that because the intellectual genius that is Tootles doesn't like his ideas means the man is should be of no consequence or interest to anyone.

I think Churchill was a racist **** . Doesn't mean I am going to start arguing the man is of no relevance.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 1 week ago
2
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 week ago
#55
(Original post by Tootles)
When I went into Highgate Cemetry, it was free. But then, that was 23 years ago. Either way, that's not really adding to our heritage; it's maintaining tombs. How exactly is gloryfing the dead "heritage"? Marx's own words on this are quite clear: In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.

(Note: I am not saying we shouldn't honour the dead.)


How about abolition of the family? Or removal of the individual's right to personal possessions or wealth? Marx wrote at length of how the "modern" family was founded on the acquisition and growth of wealth, and how parents exploit their children; how children are to receive their entire education from the state and their parents are to have no hand in it at all? He also speaks of how the men of wealthy families are essentially doomed to seduce other women or use their money on prostitutes.

See what's already happening in our country. Parents are forced by circumstance into putting their children into the care of others from an increasingly early age. When I was a child, one might go to a day nursery for a year or so prior to starting school, so they could get used to it (but many didn't go), but now it's quite common for parents to take children as young as two into nursery, especially where I live. Children are being stripped of individuality by the state, and it's observable by anyone with eyes that they don't have the respect or love for their parents that they did when I was a child.

And then, in the same chapter (chapter 2), Marx writes: The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. What's he saying? Bear in mind that his work is philosophical and ideological, and then take note that he says that charges made ... are not deserving of serious examination. He's saying quite literally that anyone who thinks differently isn't to be taken note of; they are to be ignored. Or, more plainly, "I'm right and everybody else is wrong". He doesn't want his own work examined by people who disagree.

Yes, Marx said some true things. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. Yes, and that's a bad thing, but there are other ways of putting that right than doing away with capital completely. Stop it being a social power, take away its power to influence. Doing away with capital and wealth completely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's all Communism is when you get down to it; it's an overreaction to the notion of radix malorum est cupiditas*.

*
Spoiler:
Show
Greed is the root of all evil.
I note that you didn't respond to the workers of the world unite sentence, which is of course the most famous aspect of the Manifesto. Perhaps because they unarguably should?

As for the rest of it, you're preaching to the converted - clearly Marx was a man of his time and views and was attempting to critique the extreme laissez faire of late-19th Century Victorian British Empire capitalism and so on as he then saw it. For sure, he makes mistakes and says things that are arrogant or intellectually untenable, as do many other leading philosophers, but his core ideas and concepts have been extremely influential. Even the basic points, like the existence of class systems, class conflict and the defence of class privilege seem unarguable nowadays. It is true that parts of his teachings had a very adverse effect on those who sought to implement them in practise - there is a definite line between some of them and the worst excesses of Stalinism - but that doesn't mean he wasn't also a great and innovative thinker in many ways.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#56
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I note that you didn't respond to the workers of the world unite sentence, which is of course the most famous aspect of the Manifesto. Perhaps because they unarguably should?
Never mind that. How about the most banal proposals such as making secondary education compulsory and banning child labour. We are evidently well on the way to communism!
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#57
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I note that you didn't respond to the workers of the world unite sentence, which is of course the most famous aspect of the Manifesto. Perhaps because they unarguably should?
Never mind that. How about the most banal proposals such as making secondary education compulsory and banning child labour.



@Tootles
to add some more ot the family debate, when marx uses terms such as exploitation it is often used in a specific way to describe a person's place in the capitalist system, as apposed to be a specific value/moral judgement of that person. Another example is what marx called none-productive labour, eg a cleaner. This doesn't mean that Marx thought these poeples' jobs were pointless and a waste of time, it rather meant they were not directly in the job of providing the surplas labour for capital to extract. Their role was to help and allow the productive sections of labour to provide the surplas for capital accumulation.
0
reply
Kaffee_1998
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 week ago
#58
The fact that there are Marx statues at all is baffling? I’d give the person who did it a medal.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 week ago
#59
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Never mind that. How about the most banal proposals such as making secondary education compulsory and banning child labour. We are evidently well on the way to communism!
How dare you advocate policies that are now completely rejected by the new oligarchs and that they are determined to reintroduce globally to correct ghastly Marxist preoccupations such as compassion for the brutally exploited? Shame on you.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 week ago
#60
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Even the basic points, like the existence of class systems, class conflict and the defence of class privilege seem unarguable nowadays.
He is so last week though.

Class is subordinated to identity now. Admittedly the pseudo intellectuals who dream up all this gender, race, gay, transgender stuff are massively influenced by his philosophical system, and in a sense are modernising him. But only because what HE wrote about, and predicted, class conflict leading to revoution is so passe now.

And the countries which climed to be following his blueprint, Russia, China, Cuba etc were all agrarian at the time of their revolutions. With no industrialised proletariat to speak of at all. The heavily industrialised ones, the US, Britain, Germany had no revolutions (if you exclude the weak attempt in 1918 in Germany). The whole analysis on the basis of class was always bollo'ks.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (42)
12.03%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
11.17%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (10)
2.87%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.58%
No (249)
71.35%

Watched Threads

View All