The Spanish Marriage of Maximilian’s son Philip in 1496 was a significant union in the House of Habsburg. This marriage marked the beginning of the French colonization of the Americas, which began in the sixteenth century by Samuel de Champlain. Marriage in these countries differed from those in high-income countries due to factors such as the prevalence of marriage and cohabitation. Indigenous women became central to the fur trade through intermarriage, connecting their birth communities with European ones and influencing marriage through its effect on aspirations related to marriage and increased consumerism.
In ancient Mesopotamia, local trade began in the Ubaid Period and developed into long-distance trade by the Uruk Period. Indigenous women became central to the fur trade as pivotal links between their birth communities and those of Europeans. Bangladesh, Egypt, and Vietnam liberalized trade using similar methods.
The fur trade in this area was the foundation of the French empire, which depended on Native American alliances to survive. The United States and Germany maintained their competitive stance throughout the years, while the United Kingdom, a historically trading nation, has seen its share of global trade fall within the last decade.
Intermarriage played an important role in anchoring trading networks for traders, and the French nobility was relatively open and rich commoners bought and married their way to social mobility. In conclusion, marriage played a crucial role in the early fur trade, with the French nobility relying on Native American alliances for survival.
📹 Was Karl Marx right?
Karl Marx remains surprisingly relevant 200 years after his birth. He rightly predicted some of the pitfalls of capitalism, but his …
What did the First Nations trade with the French?
Indigenous peoples in Canada were essential players in the fur trade of the early 17th to the mid-19th centuries. They provided animal furs, including highly sought-after beaver pelts, to European traders, who, in turn, gave Indigenous peoples manufactured items like pots, beads, textiles and weapons.
Kathleen DuVal, The Native Ground: Indians and Colonists in the Heart of the Continent, Early American Studies.
Michael Witgen, An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped Early North America.
Laura Peers, The Ojibwa of Western Canada, 1780 to 1870.
Why did European nations like Spain colonize the Americas?
Motivations for colonization: Spains colonization goals were to extract gold and silver from the Americas, to stimulate the Spanish economy and make Spain a more powerful country. Spain also aimed to convert Native Americans to Christianity.
Development of labor systems: In order to extract natural resources from the Americas, European colonizers created labor systems, like the encomienda system, to exploit Native American labor. When Native Americans began to die from diseases like smallpox, the Spanish and Portuguese began capturing and sending enslaved Africans to the Americas as a labor force.
Interactions with Native Americans: Spanish colonizers attempted to integrate Native Americans into Spanish culture by marrying them and converting them to Catholicism. Although some Native Americans adopted aspects of Spanish culture, others decided to rebel. The Pueblo Revolt was one example of a successful Native American effort to reclaim their religious practices, culture, and land.
Why did the French and Dutch seek alliances with American Indians?
French and Dutch colonization in the Americans focused on the profitable fur trade. Depending on Native Americans to hunt animals for their pelts, French and Dutch colonizers cultivated friendly relationships with Native Americans through intermarriage and military alliances.
Motivations for colonization: The French colonized North America to create trading posts for the fur trade. Some French missionaries eventually made their way to North America in order to convert Native Americans to Catholicism. The original intent of Dutch colonization was to find a path to Asia through North America, but after finding the fur trade profitable, the Dutch claimed the area of New Netherlands.
Establishing permanent settlements: Unlike the Spanish and English, the French and Dutch created few permanent settlements. French settlements were initially made up of fur traders, merchants, and missionaries, so that there were fewer than 5,000 settlers by 1672. Dutch settlements were also relatively small, and only about half of their residents were Dutch, the others being a mix of ethnicities, including Germans and French.
Why did Spain and France establish colonies in the Americas?
Spain saw the potential in North America after the voyage of Columbus. Spain founded colonies in Florida, the Caribbean, and South America in search of resources. High on that list were precious metals, like gold. France established colonies in North America as a way to aid their trading with the Native Americans.
Spain and France established colonies in America for the same reasons thatEngland did, namely wealth and prestige. France and Spain established theircolonies before England as well. Spain saw the potential in North America afterthe voyage of Columbus. Spain founded colonies in Florida, the Caribbean, andSouth America in search of resources. High on that list were precious metals,like gold.
France established colonies in North America as a way to aid their tradingwith the Native Americans. French trading outposts had already been establishedin North America as a way to obtain furs and other resources for export.Establishing colonies such as New Orleans allowed for the consolidation oftrading at a port.
Establishing colonies also allowed these powers to claim territorialboundaries that would hopefully exclude encroachment by other powers. Inaddition, adding to the number of recognized colonies was a way for the majorpowers to obtain prestige or recognition of their status.
Who colonized America first?
Norse Viking explorers are the first known Europeans to set foot on North America. Norse journeys to Greenland and Canada are supported by historical and archaeological evidence.11 The Norsemen established a colony in Greenland in the late tenth century, and lasted until the mid 15th-century, with court and parliament assemblies (þing) taking place at Brattahlíð and a bishop located at Garðar.12 The remains of a settlement at LAnse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada, were discovered in 1960 and were dated to around the year 1000 (carbon dating estimate 990–1050).13 LAnse aux Meadows is the only site widely accepted as evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. It was named a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1978.14 It is also notable for its possible connection with the attempted colony of Vinland, established by Leif Erikson around the same period or, more broadly, with the Norse colonization of the Americas.15 Leif Eriksons brother is said to have had the first contact with the native population of North America which would come to be known as the skrælings. After capturing and killing eight of the natives, they were attacked at their beached ships, which they defended.16.
While the Norse established some colonies in the north-eastern part of North America as early as the tenth century, systematic European colonization began in 1492. A Spanish expedition sailed west in order to find a new trade route to the Far East, the source of spices, silks, porcelains, and other rich trade goods. Ottoman control of the Silk Road, the traditional route for trade between Europe and Asia, forced European traders to look for alternative routes. The Genoese mariner Christopher Columbus led an expedition to find a route to East Asia, but instead landed in The Bahamas.17 Columbus encountered the Lucayan people on the island Guanahani (possibly Cat Island), which they had inhabited since the ninth century. In his reports, Columbus exaggerated the quantity of gold in the East Indies, which he called the New World. These claims, along with the slaves he brought back, convinced the monarchy to fund a second voyage. Word of Columbuss exploits spread quickly, sparking the Western European exploration, conquest, and colonization of the Americas.
Spanish explorers, conquerors, and settlers sought material wealth, prestige, and the spread of Christianity, often summed up in the phrase gold, glory, and God.18 The Spanish justified their claims to the New World based on the ideals of the Christian Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims, completed in 1492.19 In the New World, military conquest to incorporate indigenous peoples into Christendom was considered the spiritual conquest. In 1493, Pope Alexander VI, the first Spaniard to become Pope, issued a series of Papal Bulls that confirmed Spanish claims to the newly discovered lands.20.
Why did the Indians help the French?
By the early 1700s, the fur trade was firmly established in the Great Lakes region. The French empire was based on the fur trade in this region and required Native American alliances to sustain it. Native people and the French traded, lived together, and often married each other and built families together. Native Americans in the Great Lakes and Mississippi valley regions often incorporated Frenchmen into their societies through marriage and the ritual of the calumet — the ceremonial pipe that brought peace and order to relationships and turned strangers into kinfolk. Throughout New France, many Native Americans converted to the Catholic faith, settled in French mission villages, attended Mass, and wore crucifixes. Many Native Americans, however, continued to practice their traditional religion or to observe a mixture of the two, and the French did not resort to forced conversions as the Spanish did.
Voyageurs (travelers in French) were men hired to work for the fur trade companies to transport trade goods throughout the vast territory to rendezvous posts. At the rendezvous points, these goods were exchanged for furs, which were then sent to larger cities for shipment to the east coast. Many traders and voyageurs married Native American women and were integrated into their Native kinship networks, frequently trading exclusively within their particular community. The French and Native people lived together in an often egalitarian fashion, ate the same foods, dressed similarly, and suffered the same hardships. As a result of generations of intermarriage, cultural differences began to blur as “mixed” children entered the fur trade. The French and Native trading system created a unique fur trade culture consisting of large communities with people of diverse heritage.
French-Native relations also brought chaos to the region. The fur trade brought the spread of guns, contagious diseases, and alcohol. French demand for Native slaves resulted in Native people raiding other Indigenous communities. Slavery existed in North America long before Europeans introduced the transatlantic slave trade. Native Americans often took their enemies captive rather than killing them and held them as subordinate people. Sometimes they gave these people as gifts while making alliances, at other times families adopted them in place of deceased relatives. But European colonialism introduced different concepts of slavery, brought new slave peoples to America from Africa, and drove Native-Native slave raiding to unprecedented levels. Slavery was an integral part of the fur trade during this period.
What were the British goals in North America?
Like the French, the English sailed to the New World in search of a short route to Asia. Other English motives included generating benefits for investors who underwrote joint- stock companies and settlement, finding raw materials for Englands growing industrial economy, and mercantilism.
What did the French trade with the natives?
Trade with the French flowed along the extensive network of waterways from French settlements along the St. Lawrence River like Montreal and Québec City, to posts in the interior at Mackinac and the upper Mississippi. The French empire depended on maintaining a network of Native alliances, and so French officials, traders, and officers tried to employ diplomacy, tact, and respect for Native culture. These relations sustained the business of the fur trade. The French traded iron tools, kettles, wool blankets and other supplies for the furs to make hats, while Native peoples exchanged furs for goods from around the world.
- Resources. Brown, Jennifer S. H. Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1980.
- Gilman, Carolyn. Where Two Worlds Meet: The Great Lakes Fur Trade. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1982.
- Gitlin, Jay. Bourgeois Frontier: French Towns, French Traders, & American Expansion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
- Nute, Grace Lee. The Voyageur. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1987.
- Podruchny, Carolyn. Making the Voyageur World: Travelers and Traders in the North American Fur Trade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.
- Podruchny, Carolyn and Laura Peers, eds. Gathering Places: Aboriginal and Fur Trade Histories. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010.
- Ray, Arthur J. Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660–1870. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974.
- Sleeper-Smith, Susan. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001.
- Van Kirk, Sylvia. Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670–1870. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.
- Wingerd, Mary Lethert. North Country: The Making of Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
What did the French trade with the Native Americans?
Trade with the French flowed along the extensive network of waterways from French settlements along the St. Lawrence River like Montreal and Québec City, to posts in the interior at Mackinac and the upper Mississippi. The French empire depended on maintaining a network of Native alliances, and so French officials, traders, and officers tried to employ diplomacy, tact, and respect for Native culture. These relations sustained the business of the fur trade. The French traded iron tools, kettles, wool blankets and other supplies for the furs to make hats, while Native peoples exchanged furs for goods from around the world.
- Resources. Brown, Jennifer S. H. Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1980.
- Gilman, Carolyn. Where Two Worlds Meet: The Great Lakes Fur Trade. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1982.
- Gitlin, Jay. Bourgeois Frontier: French Towns, French Traders, & American Expansion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
- Nute, Grace Lee. The Voyageur. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1987.
- Podruchny, Carolyn. Making the Voyageur World: Travelers and Traders in the North American Fur Trade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.
- Podruchny, Carolyn and Laura Peers, eds. Gathering Places: Aboriginal and Fur Trade Histories. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010.
- Ray, Arthur J. Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660–1870. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974.
- Sleeper-Smith, Susan. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001.
- Van Kirk, Sylvia. Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670–1870. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.
- Wingerd, Mary Lethert. North Country: The Making of Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
What were the goals of the French in North America?
France established colonies in much of eastern North America, on several Caribbean islands, and in South America. Most colonies were developed to export products such as fish, rice, sugar, and furs. Map of North America (1656–1750).
France began colonizing the Americas in the 16th century and continued into the following centuries as it established a colonial empire in the Western Hemisphere. France established colonies in much of eastern North America, on several Caribbean islands, and in South America. Most colonies were developed to export products such as fish, rice, sugar, and furs.
The first French colonial empire stretched to over 10,000,000km2 (3,900,000sqmi) at its peak in 1710, which was the second largest colonial empire in the world, after the Spanish Empire.12.
As they colonized the New World, the French established forts and settlements that would become such cities as Quebec, Trois-Rivières and Montreal in Canada; Detroit, Green Bay, St. Louis, Cape Girardeau, Mobile, Biloxi, Baton Rouge and New Orleans in the United States; and Port-au-Prince, Cap-Haïtien (founded as Cap-Français) in Haiti, Saint-Pierre and Fort Saint-Louis (formerly as Fort Royal) in Martinique, Castries (founded as Carénage) in Saint Lucia, Cayenne in French Guiana and São Luís (founded as Saint-Louis de Maragnan) in Brazil.
Why did French and Dutch settlers seek peaceful relations with local Indians?
French and Dutch settlers depended on trade. Why did French and Dutch settlers seek peaceful relations with local Indians? French and Dutch settlers believed Indians would work harder on their farms if they were treated with respect.
What cultural changes were brought by the establishment of France trading posts and colonies?
Final answer: The establishment of French trading posts and colonies during 1450-1750 brought about social changes in France in terms of economic advancements, cultural merges, and social redirections due to exploratory ventures.
📹 Long Live the King!
Have you ever wanted to be a king, but are too lazy to establish your own kingdom? Well, why not take over someone else’s …
Marx definitely did NOT say he thought wealth should be divided up equally. I don’t think he just said take the wealth and divide it by the population. I think what he was saying is the means of production would be owned collectively and everyone would get what they needed. Now of course in a highly technological society a lot more than basic needs would be possible, but certainly nobody would go without. I sometimes think the Welfare State is well on its way toward that, where nobody would ever fall below a certain level while humanity reached great heights. The bigger problem might be how collective ownership achieves this in mass technological society, so to this point we have markets and taxes and worker protections.
I remember completely reading Marx’s Capital, and was so overwhelmed and blown away by his analysis. I needed some time to comprehend his work ethic and diligence, because I’d never read a genius before and was in awe how a human being could’ve produced such a thing. Through his analysis, that man was ahead of his time, and is waiting paitently for us to rise to his call.
I am not a communist but I must note that there are some benefits of communism that can’t seem to be solved with democracy or capitalism. In a communism state, where pure communism could be achieved without a corrupt leader, crime envy and rivalry would be a thing of the past. Of course, having a leader who can manage an entire country without corruption is almost impossible to find, communism could be the solution to many of the world’s problems including starvation, economic instability etc.
Marx never underestimated the productive capabilities of capitalism. He just said that there was a better way we can be productive with a social plan instead of the chaos of the market which wastes a lot of resources(expenditure on marketing instead of R&D, turbulent equilbration, over 80% firm failure rate, resource depletion/environmental degradation…)
You correctly say a communist society is stateless but then blame it for the ensuing tyranny even though such a stateless society was never reached. No, the process got stuck at what most would actually describe as state capitalism (or state socialism), and a highly authoritarian state at that, hence the tyranny.
Right from the beginning I can call bullshit. Marx provided a critique of Capitalism. Not “solution”, but critique. Further, Marx’s theory, if I can simplify, is the theory of evolution applied to economics. The “solutions” you are talking about are the charecteristic of what Capitalism will evolve into. Marxism is not some other economic ideology one chooses willy nilly like icecream.
This comment section shows how difficult it is for certain people to grasp the idea of “format” and its constraints. This is an extremely short article meant to provide an *extremely brief* summary of the most *salient* and *practical* ways in which Marx was right or wrong. It is not meant to “explain Marxism”. It is not meant to “provide a rigorous critique of Marx’s ideas”. It is just a bullet-point summary. And if you think something in this article is inaccurate, go ahead and explain what it is instead of writing “lol tHiS iS iNacCuRaTe aNd EcOnOmiST BaD CoZ eCoNoMiST caPiTaLiST lolz”. I suspect many of you, 20-year-old self-proclaimed Marxism experts, would be very quickly humbled if you actually met and talked about Marxism and economics with the people behind the production of this article.
Well first of all… Marx always said that socialism will take place in a society where capitalism has helped in economic growth of society his analysis was historical and more of a prediction which hegel also tried to do … And he always said that socialism cannot take place in a society or country where 85% of the population is peasant
A MASSIVE mistake here is that Marx or Marxists or socialists want to “spread the world equally”. That’s a kind of meaningless and impossible concept. What they actually argued for was the democratic ownership of the means of production – a much more serious idea. How workers would do this is very little discussed by Marx except to say that they would organise their own means outside of the bourgeois system. Also, this article mention “utopian ideal”. Marx was an indefatigable critic of utopianism and idealism; in fact Marxist theory is called dialectical and historical materialism – it’s materialist, the very opposite of idealist philosophy/religion which sees the world as being shaped by human ideas. Marx saw humans as being part of a material world and that as the world influences us, we also shape the world around us through our labour.
75% of that absolute poverty lift you’re talking about comes from China, which is a self proclaimed communist state. Your arguments against that are one thing (state capital etc) but ‘Capitalism’ didn’t lift that many people out of poverty. Marx also talks about how the market value of products is cheaper thus not paying for true value of labour in Das Capital. It’s mass produced, market value is less. Do your homework. Marx was more right than you think. Social Democrat and Welfare states borrow ideas from Marxism, NOT Capitalism. They adopt Marxist ideals. They’re not Capitalist successes, it’s called Social Market Economy.
Marx was idiosyncratic and believed that economic value was created by only the physical labor directly required to turn raw materials into products. IE: He had economic blinders on and never recognised that, this is why his theories would never work in reality he was working on a total misapprehension of what “value” means.
According to Marxism, there are two main classes of people: The bourgeoisie controls the capital and means of production, and the proletariat provide the labour. \r Marx doesn’t understand profit because he never owned a manufacturing company nor work in a manufacturing company.\r Marx understanding of profit is like this\r Total Cost = labor cost\r Profit = price – total cost\r He thought the reason the bourgeoisie increase price is to increase profit. The bourgeoisie is exploiting the proletariat by increasing price.\r Actually, profit is like this \r Total Cost = labor cost + material cost + transport cost + machine cost + energy cost + currency depreciation \r Profit = price – total cost\r However, the reason bourgeoisie increase price could be due to inflation cause by ( labor / material / transport / machine / energy / currency depreciation ).\r That’s why in the communist countries during the cold war, there are always shortage of goods and services. People need to wait for 10 years to buy a car.
well actually in the communist manifesto he describes and criticizes many socialist models like the ones you guys claim are the materialization of communism. however marxist communism is a stateless and moneyless society, making the soviet union and other self proclaimed communist or socialist countries stalinist and not communist societies, so communism was never actually implemented anywhere but small societies like the paris commune in 1871.
Marx was in the period of free capitalism. He did not know the change from free capitalism to monopoly capitalism, which was his limitation. However, the most essential contradiction of capitalism, that is, the contradiction between private ownership of means of production and socialization of production, has not disappeared. The economic crisis in recent years, the COVID-19 and the war between Russia and Ukraine are all impacts on capitalism. Society has a trend of development. Marx’s historical materialism, surplus value theory and materialist dialectics are his greatest achievements. Even after being attacked by you for more than a century
There was nothing wrong with Marx’s solution. The problem was how capitalist countries worked tirelessly to make the lives of people in communist countries more difficult through economic sanctions and propaganda. We can also see in Russia how the country has gotten considerably worse since the fall of the empire.
“his solution was far worse than the disease”. The solution you are referring to is the police state established in Russia following the Bolshevik coup de’tat. But that was not Marx’ solution. After all, Marx died in 1883. Blaming Marx for what the Bolsheviks did is grossly simplistic. At the beginning of the Russian Revolution many socialists in Russia believed Lenin and the Bolsheviks had fundamentally misunderstood Marx ‘ writing.
Marx never underestimated the abilities of Capitalism: “The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.” -Communist Manifesto But also he never said it would make everybody rich, which obviously isn’t true. Also welfare states emerged because of existence (and constant threat) of USSR. As it is gone now, for example Swedish people are wondering and complaining about why everything is getting privatised gradually in the last 30 years. They can keep wondering.
Uh, did the people who made this article even bother to read Marx?? This has nothing to do with what he actually said (and I’m not saying this to defend Communism, which has inflicted a lot of harm on the world ~ but this feels like someone summarizing a page of bullet points about Communism from a middle school textbook)
This explanation of Marx is shit. The “poor staying poor” doesn’t take class mobility into account, which has INCREASED in both directions under capitalism. And Marx actually DID predict the fruits of capitalism making things cheaper (economies of scale were known about since well before Malthus). Not to mention how Marx was actually a CRITIC of Hegelian conceptions of “geist” and placed all economic meaning in a dialectic of materialism, meaning that socialist/communists will ALSO promote material goods culturally.
Even if you don’t agree with his ideas of what a system of government should be like, marx’s ideas have led to lots of positive change in the world – trade unions giving workers shorter hours and larger wages, universal healthcare, universal education, etc. Without Marx and his ideas, it’s difficult to justify why capitalism has improved itself with reforms as such.
“Karl Marx undereestimated the power of capitalism to make everyone ritcher by making products cheaper” .. LOL … My mother strongly dissagrees. Se …. She was born and raised in CCCP and back then everything was getting cheaper, food was getting cheaper, housing was available to everyone, driving license was free to get, education was free and many more things. …
but you can’t really call those states communism though. It still had a ruling class. The entire point of communism is to hand the means of production over to the people. The means of production was handed over to the state. This wouldn’t have been so bad had the state been democratic. But it wasn’t, it was handled by a group of 7-9 people known as the politburo. This wasn’t communism this was leninism, and later stalinism.
Uhhh, no. The lowering of absolute poor people only exists because capitlists shifted the definition of what absolute poor is, and in addition, no matter the economic system, items that are produced in mass quantities only get cheaper…. except under capitalism where you have things like insulin being marked up in price by a hugely ridiculous sum, especially considering it is a necessity to live. Way to give a totally unbiased and absolutely fair explaination of marx whilst also ignoring that the soviet oppression only happened as a direct result of totalitarianism and not communism. In case you are wondering i used sarcasm. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which parts i used it in
How to tell if someone doesn’t understand Marxism: they insist he was an advocate of wealth-redistribution through *equality-of-outcome*. Marx enunciated the ideal goal of pure communism as being ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ This does not imply complete equality of income, as people have different needs, for example, different family sizes or health problems. Marx contrasted this goal with that of socialism, which would be ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. He made the case that it was working people, not the shareholders and investors that create hold the real stakes in production, and once they are aware of this, they will be more than able to run society for themselves. Was this achieved in the USSR? No, the conditions in Russia in 1917 were not sufficient to maintain it, and the October revolution was a gamble to break the weakest link of world capitalism. Furthermore, Russia became isolated; with the civil war and the death of Lenin, there were factions fighting over the future of the USSR. Stalin won and abandoned the idea of international socialism to build “socialism in one country”. This became the first instance of “socialism” to survive the onslaught against it by capitalist nations, and was mimicked by a bunch of other countries. The attempt by the capitalists to make this into “multiple experiments all failing” ignores the facts of how Stalinism in russia influenced all the emerging movements everywhere in the world.
I’d like to say that Max principles of philosophy is pretty convincing when you try to use it to explain your doubts of reality and this world. But his idea of economy and politics largely depends on his historical stage of the world. By now both capitalism and communism has changed themselfs a lot. That’s why you shouldn’t judge a country by simple words of social forms. Each country has its own way in somewhers between, but still claim themselves to be either capitalism or communism.
There are several mistakes in this article. Fristly, the ussr didn’t turn out that murderous because of socialism, but because it existed in the wrong place, russia, where the material conditions made impossible the achievement of socialism. Secondly, Marx, was just talking about worker ownership of the means of production. Not just the state. This could be achieved from a democratic state all the way to worker cooperatives. Thirdly, social democracy is not supposed to be a better capitalism, it is meant to be a transitionary period between capitalism and socialism through reform.
2:40 Those ”welfare states” and ”reforms” were actually fought for by socialists in many cases. Marx also stated in the Manifesto that capitalism created immense productive forces. Obviously a presenter with an anti-socialist / anti-Marx bias would leave out those facts. The most ambitious reform proposals usually came from European socialist parties which were inspired by the writings of Karl Marx. The 1891 Erfurt Program of the SPD calls for the creation of an 8-hour work day (a common demand of socialists and Marxists) and public healthcare in addition to socialization of key industries.
” He also got wrong the capacity of capitalism to reform itself my creating wealth estates that redistribute wealth through taxation” This is simply false. If this were true we wold not be living in a world of rampant inequality like you rightly point out in the clip. The reduction in absolute poverty though, now that’s an actual point worth debating.
Marx’s claims are more of a diagnose than a cure. He saw the problem within the system, but were also limited by the era he lived in, unable to provide the perfect cure (neither can we at this time). His methods of thinking and studying the society, however, are an invaluable asset for all human beings.
Hey there. If you would like to learn more about how people during beginnings of Soviet times viewed the communist regime you should read a book called “Us” by Eugene Zamyanin. He was a Russian publicist and writer in Russian Empire and Ussr during 1910-1930. This book is a novel about his view of future of communism and the world. It is fun to read to think about, it predicted a lot of things, like skyscrapers, cameras, etc. and was banned for 80 years for its critique of the regime. Have fun
1. The “Utopian ideal” is addressed in the essay “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”. The “Economist”, clearly you’ve never read it. 2. It’s less that the ideal of a fair and equal society failed to materialize and more that America has tried everything possible including hundreds of assassination attempts and severe starvation sanctions to make sure that countries that stand up to U.S imperialism to spread popular social reforms for their people (instead of America’s business interests) suffer economically in the hands of U.S foreign policy! 3. I hear from brainwashed morons how “communism slaughtered millions” yet they never can justify how or why giving people democracy in the work place and free education and healthcare slaughters them since they always seem to leave out the part where America comes to “liberate” with coups, drones, bombs and starvation sanctions. 4. Marx didn’t “underestimate” the ability of capitalism to make everyone richer by making everything cheaper. Us Millennials are poorer than our previous generations. We earn less (real wages and cost of living adjusted), own fewer assets and have more debt. 85% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. However, the owner class are richer than EVER BEFORE, by the hard work of those desperate workers in 3rd world countries working for pennies a day. What Marx did underestimate, is the ability of the people to regress intellectually and praise the shepherds of the sheeple. The working people that keep voting against their own interests.
Like all things that evolve the initial versions of Communism were imperfect. But China seems to have a better variant lately with its mixture of low level market recognition but overall focus on public wealth and improvements that take decade to materialize and that no capitalist system would be able to furnish.
“Impovrished it’s citizens.” Ha! The Russian economy is much worse today than it was in 1991! Under Stalin and Khrushchev, the Soviet GDP was the second fastest growing economy in the world behind Japan, and could’ve have stayed that way if not for Khrushchev and Gorbachev’s reforms. The Soviet Union also had a higher average calorie intake than the United States after ww2, not to mention a higher industrial production. The problems with the Soviet Union and most attempts at communism lie not with the economy, but the society. Lack of free speech and corruption lead to the fall of socialism.
I love how the Answer is “Yes but: his idea of a stateless society was never realized and therefore the thing that he didn’t suggest(having a state) meant he was responsible for millions of deaths)” is your ultimate point of the article. There’s nothing wrong with coming out and just saying not he was Mostly(More than 50%) Correct.
Quotes from Marx: “A very happy event, the death of my wife’s 90-year-old uncle was announced yesterday.” (Karl Marx on the death of a rich uncle, from whom he expected a considerable inheritance, 1855) “I got a surefire plan to squeeze money out of your old man.” (Karl Marx in a letter to Friedrich Engels to his rich factory owner father, 1848) “The Germans and the Scandinavians, both belonging to the same great race, only prepare the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slav, when they quarrel with each other instead of uniting.” (Karl Marx in 1853 about Russians and other Slavs who later on admired him most) “Couldn’t my mother (have) died instead of Mary, who is now full of physical infirmity and has lived her life to the full anyway? (Karl Marx about his own mother in a letter to Friedrich Engels, whose partner Mary had just died, 1863) “My old lady replied yesterday. Nothing but tender phrases, but no cash. She also tells me what I have known for a long time, that she is 75 years old and feels some infirmities of old age.” (Marx in a letter to Engels about his own mother, 1861) “Let a socialist revolution begin by liquidating the primitive wastes of peoples, such as the Basques, Bretons, Scottish Highlanders.” – Karl Marx, 1848 in the Rheinische Zeitung “The classes and races that are too weak to cope with the new conditions of life must clear the way. “They must be swept away in a revolutionary storm of the world.” – Karl Marx, 1848 in the Rheinische Zeitung ‘Or is it a misfortune that the beautiful California has been snatched away from the lazy Mexicans who knew nothing to do with it?
NEVER FORGET WE ARE IN CONTINUOUS ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTS THAT SIMPLY LAST LONGER THAN 1 LIFETIME Whilst this article is accurate to a point, it’s VERY IN ACCURATE in that latter part. Capitalist nations have survived by war mongering smaller and poorer nations into the production process to allow profits to continue. And SOCIAL PROGRAMS were only created because of huge worker demands and capitalists eventually realised that it was simply “area’s” of profit to build. IE. Private schools, hospitals, subcontracting law enforcement and jails etc… This leads us to where we are today. Getting towards the opposite of communism in “fascism” (corporate and government working together and the people’s opinions are an afterthought) * Problems are blamed on immigration, or some other 3rd party, race, religion, whatever distracts and divides it the key. And this is DONE by capitalists, because they have very little other windows before they must concede to the worker* I’m not a Marxist or communist, I believe human greed is sadly built into society on large scales and we must figure out a system that deals with that AND works for the masses* So perhaps instead of federal law trumping state law we should have state law always trumping federal or even smaller scales trumping the larger governance body??? I am only guessing at new ideas…. So re8 Marx is actually far far more correct than not. The only problem is that his workers utopia doesn’t cater for the greedy in society, it assumes everyone is happy with wealth distribution, where in human nature since we were tribes roaming the earth this has not been the case.
He would have been right except the labour union movement saved capitalism from itself by redistributing wealth (and power) through higher wages and decent worker protection and benefits. Sufficient education together with legitimate elections can also help by introducing social programs to redistribute wealth. But if there’s too much union busting and too many tax breaks for the wealthy, capitalism could wind up eating its own tail and collapsing – we had a taste of that in 2008 but borrowed heavily and shopped ourselves temporarily out of that. Communism and capitalism are similar in that they both fail on their own because they’re both far too simplistic to work sustainability in the real world. For long term success you need a proportionally elected (real) democracy, a good constitution that protects all minorities, strong private sector, strong unions, well funded public health and education and strong government all subject to the same rule of law. “lefty-righty” coke-vs-pepsi style arguments are just lame when addressing the necessarily complicated art of statecraft.
One has to wonder if Marx spelled out every single part of how all this would go. Ignoring the moralist reasons, its certainly true that Social Democracies have been able to struggle for broader benefits to the wider society in many nations. That has to be attributed to the masses of people who asserted themselves over the decades, forcing societies and governments into some type of concession. It’s just that some of the earlier practitioners who took the world straight to Communism faced serious issues: They really didn’t follow Marx too closely, especially in theorizing who the proletariat was, and how to develop it wholesale without international socialism, and they became rather isolated and brittle. On the other hand, the unconscious process of evolution has produced stable democracies that might be scorned by hardline socialists, but nonetheless have taken us a long way from laissez-faire. This wasn’t supposed to happen, but it did and we have to deal with that reality.
Marx never underestimated capitalism but rather considered it an advance in the human history. What he criticized was its outcome where the majority get exploited to keep the few richer and the majority even poorer. He therefore, suggested the means of production to be seized by the majority (workers) and thus the fruit of labor to be divided between the workers equally and justly.
Marx never said that capitalism would fall because of gross inequalities he said it would evolve to a different type of economic system because the contradictions within capitalism would cause a restructuring. He also noted that capitalism did reinvent itself. And last, he did not propose a solution, the closest he came to that was saying that the Paris commune „could be” a model for a future government „a dictatorship of the Proletariat” and he proposed that their would be an evolution from capitalism to socialism to communism. But this was not a „solution” it was how believed society would naturally evolve. The fact that all European nations have forks of social democracy is significant, as it seems to conform to his idea of dialectical materialism and also to Hegelian idea of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. Social democracy could easily be thought of as a synthesis of capitalism and socialism. The majority of his work was an analysis of the capitalist economic system and its contradictions. And people should read it if they want a better understanding of the capitalist system.
IMO in Something Marx was right, like Class Struggle but in a lot of things he is either off or just plain wrong like with any other Philosopher but he was dead on about how Rich People and the Lower Classes are always bound to come to blows with each other as they have contrasting interests (the Employer wants to pay people with the Least amount of Cash possible/realistically to the Worker for the most amount of Work and Efficiency while the Worker’s interest is to Profit from his work and have Compensation and Retirement benefits with the Minimum amount of Work possible.) especially during his time where Workers are so Cartoonishly exploited thanks to high Corruption and really Bad Anti Corruption laws.
I have several questions to ask. 1. What did Karl Marx get right? 2. What did he get wrong? 3. Were his theories valid in the period he wrote them? 4. And do his theories still have relevancy now? 5. Have neo-Marxists improved his theories much? 6. How do Marxists differ from Keynesians (demand-side) economically speaking?
Funny how few point out Marx’s bad character. Besides his self-hating racism for Jews, he was a self-centered narcissist that insisted on his way with everything. His wife was quoted as stating “He’s my big baby”. While his wife and children lived in dirt poverty and near starvation, Marx always made sure he had his wine and cigars. He never got his hands calloused for doing blue collar work, but struggled to get his articles published. His rich capitalist buddy Engels, who inherited his Daddy’s textile business and lived like a aristocratic Bourgeoisie, kept bailing out Marx over and over, until he finally just set him up on a monthly stipend. Marx chased down every family and friend’s inheritances, even though in his Communist Manifesto one of his platforms was to abolish inheritances! It was always “Do as I say, not as I do” with Marx. Even then Marx burned through money like there was no tomorrow. When Marx moved to England, he purchased a very nice middle class house, with servants (Just like BLM did recently) and then took his family on a three week vacation. Afterward, he threw a party for his daughter and 50 of her friends. The he was in debt again, and Engels had to bail him out again. Marx later got his unpaid housemaid pregnant, and then ignored the child. He had Engels claim it was his son, so Marx reputation would not suffer. Marx never cared about the poor or the working class. It was always about himself. He never went to a protest, never mingled with the workers, but always put himself as “special” to live like the very Bourgeoisie he was jealous of.
Poors are not “poors” anymore. Standard of poors changed. In economic growth, those who benefit the most of it are the poor. At the time of Karl Marx, when a poor man wanted to read something the evening. He couldn’t, he had no light and candles were expensive. Only kings and rich people could read the evening. Now, a poor or the president both just have to turn on the light by flipping a button. Simple.
The problem with socialism and communism and the many many other forms of the two is that its very clear through real world examples, like Venezuela, that none of it works. Capitalism isn’t perfect but it has kept many nations afloat. Meanwhile one of the classic examples of communism (The USSR) didn’t even make it out of the 20th century. Again, Capitalism is not perfect, but it beats the alternative.
A stranger among the peoples, resisting conversion and assimilation, constituting a State within a State, the Jays untiringly applies himself to judaising the nations. In his book les Juifs et le Monde Actuel, J. Madaule shows how Luther, at the beginning of the Reformation, at first defended the J’s, but was not long in changing his attitude towards them, for, as he says : “It was not the J’s who were becoming Protestants but the Protestants who were becoming jays.” (J. Madaule, ibid., p. 171) Karl Marx went even further and said: “The Jay emancipated himself in Hebrew fashion, not only by making himself master of the money-market but because owing to him and through him money has become a world power, and the practical Pinnochio spirit has been adopted by the Christian peoples. The nose people set themselves free in proportion as the Christians became J’s. ‘Thus they contributed considerably to making money the means, the measure and the end of all human activity.” (Quoted in Salluste : les Origines Secretes du Bolchevisme, Book: Architects Of Deception by Yuri Lina.
I don’t think communism has ever got a fair shot at making it, in the sense that the examples of communism that the world has seen so far have been autocracies with little to no accountability to it’s people. Thus they were run by corruption or sometimes utter incompetence. The people lived in poverty and never had the chance of free qualkity education, which is essential in any system run by the people. I therefore think the conclusion made by this piece is unfair to communism.
Oh, so the Economist is proposing that we find a new way of dealing with capitalism rather than a new system all together? Hmmm, seems to me like the Economist doesnt understand capitalist economy. Im sorry to say this, but the problems that arise in capitalism arent just by fault of management but are integral parts of the systems damn definition. And history has shown that. Sorry again🤷
You said that poverty is decreasing but in which country and which conditions? We must examine them carefully. The western world was thinking that he was wrong about capitalism but in the end of the day some countries are worse than the USSR. Therefore, Capitalism is not a exact solution of the world and in some countries class struggle are increasing
Personally, I am NOT so impressed and convinced that capitalism is still being relevant even today. In having seen this article by the reactionary right-wing publication, The Economist, I am so offended when the narrator stated that the solution by Karl Marx “was far worse than the disease.” Well, I DO NOT accept that kind of alternative fact by most of Marx’s detractors and I also think that what happened in the Soviet Union and other supposed socialist countries were NOT based on REAL TRUE socialism or Communism!
TBH Marxism has never truely been tried. Communists all made their own version. Heck in China they found a way to make it work in a more late/collapsing Soviet inspired version. Not to mention Marxism in it’s true form is supposed to be done after full capitalism has been achieved and then it may be able to be successful. That being said I am not saying communism is good or capitalism is bad. He was just a philosopher and some of his idea’s today thrive in capitalist democratic society and the entire purpose of his philosophy was just to start debates and look at alternatives to what was then a oligarch and elite class dominated society.
Quite impressive how many times The Economist manages to misrepresent Marx’s theories in such short a article. Perhaps most egregious is the suggestions that he failed to consider that capitalism can bring people out of poverty by lowering the prices of necessities. Literally every Marxist will tell you that capitalism has a progressive role to play in the historic development of society.
“During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
“Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe out North America from the map of the world and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilisation. Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.” Karl Marx, “The Poverty of Philosophy,” 1847
Does anyone els keep having the issue we’re the king will get taken prisoner, thrown in a dungeon (even one that’s not all that far away), but by the time u get there they are free? This keeps on happening to me. for the past few days I have been trying to kill derpurt, but no matter how many times he gets held prisoner I can never get there in time to kill him before he escapes/gets set free
I build armies take every town and castle, always let the beaten lords leave peacefully and still have -10 to -100 reputation with many lords and king of the clan (western empire) what i am thinking is to kill every – reputation lord like in the article but i have 300 medic skill so this tactic is hard to achieve i dont know what to do 🙁 edit: my problem is i took all the castles and towns, beat the rival clans leaders all the time and %90 percent of the time other lords get the fiefs its not good i feel like being used and treated poorly :((
The game must make politics more real, dynasties and houses and blood relations besides politics and alliances is what defined the name of rulers in medival times, overthrowing an entire dynasty that has heirs to the throne with all of its loyal influential people is quite a hard tasm to do, rarelydone without a revolution or foreign complete annexation of the country