Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

50 greatest books

Kapital crimes

FRANCIS WHEEN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:32 AM EDT 12/03/08

We have all read Das Kapital in the world about us, in the dramas and conflicts of contemporary history ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. PC mg from Canada writes: "inanimate objects......acquire tremendous life and vigour, while the toiling humans who produce them are reduced to the status of inanimate machines."

    A good summation of Marxism, the means or process of production is the human mind and soul, and trying to control it at the expense of an individual is a crime indeed.
  2. Dr. Sartor from Victoria, Canada writes: As someone who has read every word of Volume One, let me say it is refreshing to come across a knowledgeable review like this one.

    Two points: Das Kapital is commonly known among English-speaking academics as Capital. Using the German "Das Kapital", as Francis Wheen and many others do, makes the work sound strange, difficult, and even scary. Second, Wikipedia informs me that Francis Wheen is a signatory to the Euston Manifesto. If I remember correctly, this pro-Bush/Blair/Iraq-War document, in calling for a renewed left to face the problems of the modern world, makes no mention at all of capitalism. Perhaps Mr. Wheen is beset by a dialectical contradiction and needs to take his praxis to a new level.
  3. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    The first in history to identify the economic basis of society was Ibn Khaldun, 500 years before Marx, but without condemning producers. Hoarded wealth, or capital, is forbidden in Islam.

    Marx's main contribution was to pit the workers against the producers. He called religion the opium of the people, yet his stance was firmly embedded in the Pauline Judeo-Christian dichotomy of good vs evil.

    Marx was so wrong. Religions are socio-economic movements that answer the primal question of existence - survival, growth, and evolution. They differ on socio-economic wealth generating unit, resource allocation, planning horizon, output distribution.

    The tribal Equity Islam of Moses was for Pastoral age, Family Love Islam of Jesus for Agrarian age, and Individual Justice Islam of Mohammed the optimal way for Trade era. Moses was a shepherd, Jesus an artisan in Fertile Crescent, Mohammed a trader.

    It is Economy after all. And Marx is the stupid one to get it all wrong.
  4. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: .. Marx's main contribution was to pit the workers against the producers. He called religion the opium of the people, yet his stance was firmly embedded in the Pauline Judeo-Christian dichotomy of good vs evil.

    If only Marx could have read Nietzsche, and Nietzsche could have read Marx .. all of your babbling nonsense wouldn't have been needed!
  5. John Quest from Bigfork, United States writes: I have not read Das Kapital. I cannot comment on it first hand, yet without knowing its contents, but having seen the results of the influence of Marx's ideas, I don't think it is a bad thing to assume that there must be some bad analysis within.

    Perhaps the most famous quote from Marx is "each producing according to his ability, each consuming according to his need". Not 100% accurate, but the idea is there. Every time this has been tried, it has failed. The second half of this, which we could call the entitlement part of culture, has been the engine to consume and destroy economies.

    If I wanted to read a sound treatise and analysis of history, I certainly wouldn't start with Marx. I appreciate reviews like this, as they can give us more information on these books, and the reviewer has done all the suffering for us.
  6. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    John Quest
    " ..... each producing according to his ability, each consuming according to his need.... "

    This is classic Talmud, of the religion of the Tribe in the Pastoral era. This kind of behaviour is needed for survival.

    In contrast, the basis of Christianity is Family and that of Islam the Individual. The two are the religions for the agrarian and the trade era.

    When the pastoral economy advances to the agrarian stage the emphasis turns from survival to growth.

    When the agrarian economy advances to the Trade era the stress shifts from growth to Evolution.

    Marx, because of his Judahist roots, got stuck in the Tribal Survival mode. Obviously he, and all those followed him, failed, as they should have. The objective conditions were not right for Marx in the trading era that we are in today.

  7. James Follwell from near the soialist stronghold of Charlottetown, Canada writes: Ya, but have you read it in Deutsche? On that subject have you read Utopia in the original latin? Is there a recent, comtemporary English translatio of Das Kapital?
  8. Man and Superman from Canada writes: for my money I'll take his early stuff written when he was 26 and not jaded - written with passion and honesty

    the basic problem with das kapital lay with Marx's assumptions regarding the tendency for the rate of profit to fall - a keystone in his argument but not held up under scrutiny and historical experience

    still a good read alonsg side karl popper and hayek - both of whom eviscerate marx's arguments. hopefully they along with hannah arendt's origins of totalitarianism will appear on the list.
  9. Jim Cohoon from Canada writes: Marx may have been most insightful when he analyzed the modes and inherent logic of capitalist production that led, for the working classes, at best to a "civilized method of exploitation" and at worst, to "misery, oppressions, slavery, degradation, exploitation"; but he may have missed the mark the widest (at least in terms of subsequent ideological 'exploitation') when of an inevitable workers revolution he wrote: "The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated." History has recorded of most communist experiments what an observant student of human nature could have predicted (to paraphrase Shakespeare): expropriators by any other name are still expropriators, exploitation is still exploitation, slavery is still slavery. Marx may have nailed the ethical problem, but certainly not the solution. Perhaps it may only be approached with a general ethical (not primarily economic) advancement of civilization as a whole, which we are still collectively struggling with. Indeed, ironically perhaps, in the post-Communist era (after 1990), the Western world, though wealthier and more economically 'free', seems to have stagnated if not regressed ethically. The world may be ready for another Marxian attempt at heroic transformation -- though this time emphasizing ethics, not economic materialism.
  10. Man and Superman from Canada writes: it is worth noting that although he devotes immense energy to explaining the asiatic mode of production - not once did he ever venture to India relying instead on NYT correspondences - he cribbed his notes!
  11. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: It has been said that capitalism is the exploitation of man by his feloow man, while communism is exactly the reverse.
  12. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: 'Fellow man', of course.
  13. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Jim Cohoon: Greetings

    Marx was amoral (not necessarily immoral). His stress was economics, not ethics, materialist, not spiritual.

    Marx did not nail the ethical or moral problem. In fact he mocked religion as the opium of the people, and religion hitherto was the bedrock of ethics. Marx, although condemning religion, did not advance any new ethical code.

    In fact Marx and his successor Soviets failed precisely because of absence of Ethics and Morality in their system. Capitalism aside, today's Democracies do have a modicum of compassion built in, thus the resilience.

    To put it other way, godless systems are unethical, and do not survive long.
  14. Dr. Sartor from Victoria, Canada writes: Man and Superman: Popper thought he had eviscerated Marx's argument, but Popper's critique of Marx's "historicism" thoroughly confuses Marx's general theory of history, which is not causally deterministic, with his theory of capital, which is. In other words, Popper mistook remarks Marx made about his (abstract) model of the capitalist economy with Marx's "historical materialist" theory of the structure and development of societies on the basis of their modes of production.

    Which brings me to John Quest's post: Capital (the book) is not about Marx's general theory of history. It is an attempt to analyze capital (hence the title) and to construct a model of the capitalist economy as a type. It is conceivable that Marx got the theory of history mostly right even if his theory of capital is seriously flawed, or it could be that his theory of capital is mostly right but his theory of history is mostly flawed. It seems that what you find fault with is actually a third facet of Marx's project: his idea of the communist society of the future. Marx actually wrote very little about that. If you want a fleshed-out version by an unorthodox Marxist, read the utopian novel News from Nowhere (1890), by William Morris.

    Syed Abbas: Marx was an atheist, but neither his analysis of capital nor his general theory of history has anything to do with atheism. Indeed, his critique of capitalism, including his notion of alienation, arose from his deep antipathy to the fact that capitalism, as he saw it, had turned people into cogs in an economic machine, robbing them of their creative potential for life-affirming relations with each other and with nature.
  15. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, Canada writes: Master Plans of any stripe are abhorent to a free people. They are the plans masters have for their slaves. I trust such diagrams of human existence as much as I do the white knight mounted on his steed,which is to say not at all.
  16. aniphylactic shock troops from Victoria, Canada writes: Arguably the most destructive book ever written.
  17. Man and Superman from Canada writes: probably not - its an abstract and theoretical treatise not a polemic like the The Communist Manifesto

    at any rate its what people do with the ideas in books that matter not the books themselves
  18. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Dr. Sartor: Greetings

    Criticizing alone is not the answer. You have to provide viable wholesome solutions. It is possible to analyze Capitalism without creating dissention in the society.

    Marx's rejection of god and religion was his undoing.

    Now compare him to Mohammed the small businessman trader. In Mecca, he too was also faced with Big Business, Bankers, Trade Monopolists, and Judahists. He offered a superior strategy of growth without capital. He failed in Mecca.

    When he moved to Medina, a semi-agrarian city, he allied the workers and peasants, and won.

    Marx failed because he too neglected the peasants. But later Lenin and Mao followed Mohammedan tactics of allying themselves with the peasants, and had a modicum of success. The two failed in the end because the took god out of the picture.

    Capitalism does make people cogs in a big machine, and thus is inefficient. Islam of Mohammed does not, and thus is more efficient. That is why it will win in the end.
  19. Curious G from Canada writes: Syed Abbas:

    I'm curious to hear your thoughts on a comment you made earlier regarding Religion being the bedrock for ethics. Can you please elaborate and possibly comment on the how that relationship stands up to the criticism that the ethical codes prescribed by religion at its outset, have gradually, and now dramatically, shifted far to a more humane ethical code. Wouldnt this dictate our ethical reasoning stems from somewhere other than religion? We can discuss those possible sources later, as stated above, I would like to hear your rationale for religion as the foundation of ethics.

    Cheers
  20. Globefollower From Canada from Canada writes: It is interesting that so many posters have bought into the drama and conflict approach to this commentary, or found some fundamental ethical, moral, economic or political flaw in Marx. Das Kapital was published by Engels after Marx died and almost 40 years after the Communist Manifesto. It is a dry and technical diagnosis and prescription for the underlying class struggle that is Marx's true contribution to Western thought. We an see the influence of his work, including Das Kapital, in the Labour Relations Act, Employment Standards Act, Occupational Health & Safety Act, Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, and universal health care and education. Marx's ideas on class structure had merit, which is way the "capitalists" so radically changed capitalism to help it survive the threat. It was Marx that said: "In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put and end to. In proportion as antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end." We should be as thankful that Das Kapital was written as we are thankful that the totality of is prescpription has not worked in practise. We should also recognize how it is those countries which have done the least to address his criticisms that continue to pose the greatest challenges in today's world.
  21. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Curious G: Greetings.

    Religions are nothing more than successful socio-economic strategies that answer to the primal existential question - survival, growth, and evolution. The spiritual icing with rituals binds people with similar economic outlook together.

    Each religion has a building block socio-economic wealth generating unit, a resource allocation formula, a planning horizon, and output distribution arrangement.

    The unit in the Islam of Moses was the Tribe and the axis Equity Law, in Islam of Jesus - Family and Love, and Islam of Mohammed, Individual and Justice.

    Religions are firmly grounded in Reality - that of Moses in the Pastoral era, Jesus in the Agrarian, and Mohammed in Trade. Ethics reflect the environment.

    In contrast, in godless systems, ethics is based on the Past - Roman Law, Common Law ethics, etc.

    We are testing waters with Human Rights. But the basis is shaky as Responsibilities are not covered yet. Abraham's Covenant is more comprehensive.
  22. Bobby Dang from Canada writes:

    @Syed Abbas

    It has always been my interpretation that what Marx implied by "religion being the opium of the masses" was how religious ideology is inherently transcendental. Therefore, pious people who are being subjugated within a capitalist system defer resistance because they believe that this world is transient, and an eternal heavenly world awaits. Relgions give primacy to a what-if reality, instead of the here-and-now world. Thus the willingness to change and uproot ones material conditions visa via political or revolutionary tactics is undermined. This conclusion leads to the famous saying, "proleteriats of the world unite", since we can change our material conditions right-now without appealing to a secondary world as a line of escape.
  23. Man and Superman from Canada writes: yes and much to his and more importantly Lenin's chagrin - it was not the proletariat that united people but nationalism and ethnic identity. The struggles of the 20th c were struggles over identity- scrape the surface of any class based war - Vietnam, Central America, Eastern and Central Europe and identity comes to the fore. Identity trumps class.
  24. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Bobby Dang: Greetings

    Your interpretation that Marx believed religious ideology to be transcendental is novel. Far from it. He interpreted that religion was outmoded.

    And he was right. The main religion in Europe in his times was Christianity, and it had agrarian and rural basis. However, the economy had moved to urban and industrial, and Christian ethics had become inefficient.

    The only Urban model Marx had before him was Hellenic Athens, and he latched on to Aristotle, with disastrous results. To Marx's misfortune Islam of Mohammed had now been corrupted and lost its Koranic basis because conditions outside Mohammedan Arabia were non-optimal for the system, thus objectively world was not yet ready.

    In classical Aristotelian Categorization, Marx proceeded to pit Proletariat against the Bosses. Had he followed Plato, he would have opted to transcend them, and unite them, as Mohammed did. Marx ignored Socrates who, like Mohammed, stressed Justice - give each his due.
  25. Man and Superman from Canada writes: Abbas writes: In classical Aristotelian Categorization, Marx proceeded to pit Proletariat against the Bosses. Had he followed Plato, he would have opted to transcend them, and unite them, as Mohammed did. Marx ignored Socrates who, like Mohammed, stressed Justice - give each his due.

    This is pure nonsense. Yet again Abbas in a desparate attempt to make everything Islamo-centric continues to fabricate.
  26. Vern McPherson from writes: stevie's bio is a literary masterpiece. All true too eh .............
  27. Timothy Philips from Toronto, Canada writes: From what I've read here, you all haven't, and you don't.
  28. gary marshall from Canada writes: I really do not understand why Christ's dictums would not apply in a modern, future society.

    Do unto others as you would be done by!

    Why does this only apply to the agrarian society?

    The reward for following such treasured and advanced advice is everlasting paradise.

    Can anyone in the past, present, or future really argue against this.

    As for Marx, like any good critic, he pointed up a number of bad practices in the capitalist system. Unfortunately, the remedies, like many that spring from the critic's mouth, were as worthless as they were over the top.

    When you work for an employer, you give and you get. If you do not get enough, you go elsewhere. It seems to me that the slavery adverted to refers to our dear government, who confiscates uncontrollably and offers so little in return.

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  29. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: "Religions are socio-economic movements that answer the primal question of existence - survival, growth, and evolution. They differ on socio-economic wealth generating unit, resource allocation, planning horizon, output distribution."

    Wrong. Religions are systems of social control designed to keep people in "their place". Whether it is the poor, women or just the great unwashed masses, religion is used as a tool by elites to control the thoughts of individuals; indeed, to keep people from developing their true potential as individuals.
    It's no surprise that the most fervently religious people are also the least educated, least informed and least able to think for themselves about the world around them.
  30. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: ... Now compare him to Mohammed the small businessman trader.

    Hi Syed, you still fail! Capitalism, as dealt with by Marx, did not exist during Mohammed's time.
  31. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes: "Capitalism does make people cogs in a big machine, and thus is inefficient. Islam of Mohammed does not, and thus is more efficient."

    Islam, like any religion, is just one big thought control machine and followers of islam like yourself are very small cogs in that machine. Please keep posting though, I find your deluded ramblings extremely entertaining! :-)

    Cheers,
    Mike
  32. gary marshall from Canada writes: Hello Mike Summers,

    Would you answer a simple question.

    What follows death in this world?

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  33. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: gary marshall from Canada writes: The reward for following such treasured and advanced advice is everlasting paradise.

    This is exactly the problem, Gary. Other-worldly religions have you look elsewhere rather than here on earth, and at the same time place all of an individuals troubles on the individual themselves (sin). So while the individual has a certain amount of freedom to look elsewhere they will continue to tell themselves 'don't worry, a little longer and I'll have the rest of eternity'.

    Not too healthy.
  34. Syed Abbas from Canada writes:

    Joe Liberali: Greetings

    The world is much bigger than Europe, one thing Marx ignored. Had he known Arabic he would have discovered that 500 years before him Ibn Khaldun from North Africa had already written extensively about economic basis of the superstructure.

    Mohammed's fight in 7th century Arabia was against Meccan Capitalists, the Umayyads, and Bankers, the Abbasides, and Trade Monopolists, and Judahist money lenders. Mohammed's contribution is to have advanced a system that argued that intelligent equity (where people bring money as well skills) is superior to dumb equity (capital). He applied his strategy and won.

    In today's economy a classical example of Koranic company is Microsoft - never had any debt, and never paid any interest. Its return on equity is par excellence.

  35. gary marshall from Canada writes: Mr. Liberali,

    Is this world the be all and the end all of existence? I would guess that many of the world's religions do not think so, whereas I suppose you do.

    Who is correct? You or all of them?

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  36. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: gary marshall from Canada writes:

    Hello Mike Summers,

    Would you answer a simple question.

    What follows death in this world?

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall

    ---------

    Hello Gary Marshall,

    Nothingness.

    Cheers,
    Mike
  37. gary marshall from Canada writes: Hello Mr. Sumners,

    What do you mean by nothingness and what proof do you advance for your assertion?

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  38. Man and Superman from Canada writes: Wrong. Religions are systems of social control designed to keep people in "their place". Whether it is the poor, women or just the great unwashed masses, religion is used as a tool by elites to control the thoughts of individuals; indeed, to keep people from developing their true potential as individuals. It's no surprise that the most fervently religious people are also the least educated, least informed and least able to think for themselves about the world around them.

    I would add or modify this slightly. Religion has also developed forms of ritual based on legitimation of power and sacrifice in order to overcome problems inherent in transitions in authority and massive violence that result from that (this is not say that religion has not justified violence - it has). But the idea of sacrifice is an interesting form of ritual in which killing becomes symbolized through specific acts. It wasn't always this way. Sacrifice is a way in which a society can overcome conflicts without resorting to killing.

    Islam needs to figure out a way for ritual sacrifice to supplant the current spate of suicide bombings which are utlimately counter productive.
  39. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    gary marshall: Greetings

    Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are the greatest economists of Pastoral, Agrarian, and Trade eras.

    Jesus based his socio-ecnonmics on Family and Love, the two necessary and sufficient conditions for survival and growth of any agrarian system. The socio-ecnonomic and spiritual superstructure of Medieval Christian Europe and pre-Modern Hindu India is remarkably similar.

    In agrarian system you are your brother's keeper (earlier it was neighbor), thus the reciprocity. But in the Individual based Exchange economy, people negotiate contracts that engender Rights that are never a mirror of each other, but depend on the differing needs of each party.

    Jesus's rule is still valid in Exchange economy, but an un-necessary constraint, no longer optimal and efficient anymore.
    Evolution needs the fit and the efficient.

    Man and Superman:
    Islam, the religion of Abraham has always triumphed - whether Islam of Moses, Islam of Jesus, and Islam of Mohammed.
  40. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: gary marshall from Canada writes: Is this world the be all and the end all of existence? I would guess that many of the world's religions do not think so, whereas I suppose you do. Who is correct? You or all of them?

    No one is trying to change your mind, but we are trying to show you explanations for sources and causes of oppression. "All of them" happen to be aids to oppression here and now on earth. I'm not even clear on why you're arguing this point when you have nothing to fear once your days run out here. Please let the rest of us continue work that you thought ceased 2000 years ago.
  41. gary marshall from Canada writes: Hello Mr. Abbas

    All you need do is tell me why Christ's precepts do not apply in the modern age?

    Does one treat his neighbor differently today in a city than would have in a rural area some 100 years ago? Should one not turn the other cheek?

    The question has always been, how ought we to live. Christ offered an answer. How does his progressive doctrine not apply to the individual of today?

    The subject of Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carole was a merchant engaged in contracts and business. And he discovered charity. Why can only a farmer and his family and no one else?

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  42. gary marshall from Canada writes: Mr. Liberali,

    Have I nothing to fear when my days run out on this earth?

    Perhaps you are convinced, but I am not.

    One may always criticise an institution. Run by humans with all their frailties, it is an easy affair. But the solution of Marx to capitalism resembles so much yours to religion, which does attempt answers at questions altogether impenetrable and perplexing: abolition or annihilation.

    With the information at hand, you have the freedom to choose your path. And others the freedom to to choose theirs.

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  43. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    gary marshall:

    Mosaic Laws of Equity as well as Jesus's Dictum are still valid. However, they are no longer efficient.

    The majority of us no longer till the land, so Family unit and Love as an axis of existence no longer make economic sense.

    Evolution requires efficiency as well as fitness - physical, psychological, economic, social, spiritual.

    Today's society is contract based, thus each party must negotiate its Rights every time. Rigid reciprocity of the old is a an economic constraint. It does not mean it is not a workable strategy, but ultimately those who practice it will be left further and further behind.

    That is why churches are becoming emptier and emptier. People have to survive and grow. They do want to get ahead. What is wrong with that? Nature does wants us to evolve.
  44. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: gary marshall from Canada writes:

    Hello Mr. Sumners,

    What do you mean by nothingness and what proof do you advance
    for your assertion?

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall

    ---------

    Hello Mr. Marshall,

    By nothingness I mean that you are put in the ground and the worms eat you. I assume you're concerned about the "eternal soul" or some such nonsense. The idea of an afterlife is the creation of humans who are unable to face their own mortality. Religious beliefs such as an afterlife are simply stories invented by men (never women ;) to try to make sense of our short existence as individuals.

    What proof do I have? None. I haven't died yet; once I have, I'll rise from the dead and let you know what it's like. Once I've done that, I'll found my own religion and start controlling people and raking in the cash. Religion is an excellent cash cow!

    As one of the other posters pointed out, you and Syed have nothing to fear because when you die, you'll join your invisible friend in the sky and live happily ever after. So why argue?

    At any rate, it's a beautiful day out and I'm going for a walk. Hope I don't get struck by lightning... :^O

    Mike
  45. gary marshall from Canada writes: Hello Mr. Abbas,

    Well, many have practiced what you speak of. And how happy are such people? How fulfilling is it to know that one's bank account is filled with numbers, numbers on pieces of paper?

    Life is not about numbers on pieces of paper, and lavish furniture. There is family and friends and wives and children and glorious days free from the drudgery and coldness of efficiency and production.

    But choose your path and follow it. And at the end of a life of sedulous application of your cherished principles, let us know how the numbers in your bank account have grown.

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  46. gary marshall from Canada writes: The motive in Christ's rising from the dead had little to do with turning a huge profit.

    He offers an eternity in paradise for following a few simple principles. You do not believe this. But I do. I have faith that his promise to me will be fulfilled should I perform as desired.

    I do not care about Church cannon or liturgy or administration. I follow simple articles faithfully that I may know of the paradise that Christ has spoken of.

    What you do is your affair. I believe you will be a far better person if you look past the wordly failings of men and clergy and concentrate upon the bigger question.

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  47. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    gary marshall:

    "..... Well, many have practiced what you speak of. And how happy are such people? How fulfilling is it to know that one's bank account is filled with numbers, numbers on pieces of paper? ...."

    Well spoken. However, the people you speak of have abandoned the Abrahamic Covenant, following a Western Hellenized lifestyle.

    Double income, no kids, large houses, small families, less work, more play, fast cars, large SUVs, frequent vacations, longer cruises, carpe-diem existence.... have led to global warming, depleted ozone layer, polluted planet, and useless purposeless existence.

    Neither Moses, nor Jesus, nor Mohammed preached this.

    There are two urban models today - Athenian Socratic and Meccan Mohammedan. In the latter savings are taxed not income. Frugality is stressed and the rest spent - in the name of the Lord. A Muslim today consumes 30-50 times less resources of the glove than a Westerner, and still lives an evolutionary longer lifespan.
  48. gary marshall from Canada writes: Hello Mr. Abbas,

    What is your prescription then? What program must we follow in this world?

    You hint at Islam. But Islam is not one religion with one interpretive body. It consists of numerous sects and factions, each vying for control.

    Do the Muslims of Dubai consume less than those of Indonesia?

    Are the muslims of Iran in harmony with those of Saudi Arabia?

    Do the muslim leaders of Saudi Arabia or Libya live as devoutly as their people?

    Please do explain the doctrine and its demands.

    Regards,
    Gary Marshall
  49. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: gary, please, you're killing me here.

    "and glorious days free from the drudgery and coldness of efficiency and production."

    "you will be a far better person if you look past the wordly failings of men and clergy and concentrate upon the bigger question."

    We're talking about Marx here! And you're showing exactly what the problem is with respect to other-worldly relgions.

    I realize now that I've been had, and you're trying to be 1. comedic and 2. demonstrative for the sake of this discussion. Well done :)
  50. Syed Abbas from Canada writes:

    gary marshall:

    I prescribe my "Christian" friends that they follow the Agraria Era Islam of Jesus. So what if it is inefficient, at least they will survive, and possibly grow. They can always graduate to Trading Era Islam of Mohammed later if it strikes their fancy.

    I agree that Dubai is wasteful. In fact much more so than Toronto. But it is not only Christians who have abandoned Jesus. A majority of muslims did so some 1,400 years ago when they opted for lesser Jihad of the sword, rather than greater Jihad of Mohammed that was meant to fight against the evil within.

    Islam of Mohammed is a religion of the Individual. It does not matter where you live, you can still follow it. Just pick up a copy of the Koran and simply read it as a book of socio-economics and management. I have done that with Bible, and it makes eminent sense. Pity the Christians have never appreciated how great and Divine Jesus was and still is.
  51. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:"Neither Moses, nor Jesus, nor Mohammed preached this."

    So what? All those guys are LONG dead, and their preachings were to rural, poverty stricken, illiterate serfs that made up the vast majority of the populations of their times. And do not deceive yourself with considerations of relative wealth; even the kings of those days were poor by modern standards.
  52. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: Just because a king didn't have an ipod or cell phone doesn't mean he was poor.

    Das Kapital is the most unreadable book ever written, even considering Ulysses by James Joyce.

    Marx & Engels have a good theory, but its good in theory only, as much as they attempt to call it scientific & social realism they don't take human behaviour into account at all. I'm currently reading a book of Marxism readings by Marx, Engels and Lenin, from the UofT bookstore.

    Such as, if no one owns property, no one takes care of it. Just look at staff lunchrooms or public streets as an example, a mess everywhere.

    If no one owns property you can't help your family in the next generation by leaving them any kind of inheritance.

    If accumulating property & being able to assist your family in this & future generations is not possible then you've taken away all financial incentives for people to put forth an effort, sort of like the Toronto Maple Leafs, we keep buying tickets no matter how badly they do, so where's the incentive to improve the team?
  53. pete peters from Blairmore, Alberta, Canada writes: The most thoroughly discredited economic ideology in history. The preserve of leftist academics who put on the cement overshoes in the 60's and 70's to inflict this nonsense on the next generation which, thankfully, may have played along for the marks like I did, but doesn't believe it any more than they believe in tooth fairies. Jugheads of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the time it takes to wander through Marx's bizarro universe.
  54. J Kay from Canada writes: GylnnMhor: I think you're the one 'deceiving onesself'. Byrelative terms, the Kings of those times were far and away more wealthy relatively than people today. As someone notes an iPod isn't symbolic of wealth, it's merely a material acquisiation and Kings back then had substantially more of what was materially desired (since iPod's didn't exist) than people today. Using a standard of technical advancement as you have done as a measure of wealth means that a street kid in Calcutta is wealthier than an Egyptian Pharoh and that's just plain nonsense and meaningless.
  55. J Kay from Canada writes: Pete Peters: Given your comments, I suspect you've never read Marx because what you refer to as 'the most throroughly discredited economic ideology in history' was not the product of Marx but Lenin. Indeed Marx once remarked that he himself was not a Marxist. Marx never really offered a solution, he instead offered an analysis of capitalism and a theory about history. Marx abstracted to an ideal, pure capitlism and preceeded to show that it would eventually lead to doom. Marx like every other econonmist or political economist was a product of his times and must be considered within those cirmcumstances in the same was Smith must be read within the context of early industrial revolution England, with an agrarian viewpoint.

    Much of Marx's analysis of the problems in Capitalism were precient and followed in a long line of economists looking at the system from Ricardo to Malthus to Mill and beyond. To say that Marx is throroughly discredited is to ignore the many things which had their genesis in the ideas and analysis outlined in Capital and other works; labour unions, universal health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. I'm not suggesting their aren't flaws to be found, as there are with all economic writing, they are after all a product of their times, however Marx can hardly be discarded to the wastebin.
  56. aniphylactic shock troops from Victoria, Canada writes: J Kay writes: To say that Marx is throroughly discredited is to ignore the many things which had their genesis in the ideas and analysis outlined in Capital and other works; labour unions, universal health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc....
    As I said earlier, the most destructive book (thesis, whatever) ever written.
    Union Mobs that drive up that cost jobs and drive up the cost of production and therefore harm consumers, a health care system that swallows 45% of our taxes and climbing, stealing from workers to give to non-workers and calling it welfare or EI or subsidies or re-training or whatever.
    Marx was the ultimate enemy of liberty. That he is given any credence whatsoever shows how far we are from being a free society.
  57. J Kay from Canada writes: aniphylactic shock: You obviously misunderstood not only Marx then but also the bulk of political economists dating from Smith, including Smith himself who had far more sympathy for the worker than he did for the landlord or the capitalist; indeed he didn't have much good to say about the capitalist at all. All have discussed the balance between the landlord, the capitalist and worker in some form or other and have seen differing outcomes. Economic treaties up to Marx saw the landlord or the capitalist as the eventual winner of the system overall. To say that union labour is as narrow as you describe is to ignore the horrorific conditions that existed during Victorian times in which Marx wrote, as did Dickens. The labour union was not only a logical but necessary response to inexcusable unmittigated greed which existed and in persists to this day, lest you think sweat shops are excusable and simply the perfect inner working of the capitalist system.

    You decry universal health care or welfare, with such narrow disdain, that one can only assume you're a Libertarian in the worst form of the word, a blind follower of Ayn Rand and ascriber of the virtuouness of selfishness. If you wish to discuss liberty, read Mill at least. Liberty is not absolute and absolute liberty is equally as destructive as none. We are afterall as much as you may dislike it a society. You the individual as much as you think yourself an island are not, you are every bit as dependant on the societal whole as anyone else, lest you think yourself, the sole determinor of your fate. The entire history of humanity manifest to date is not the story of the individual but of the collective.
  58. Syed Abbas from Toronto, Canada writes:

    GlynnMhor of Skywall: Greetings

    Man or woman, rich or poor, old or young, black or white, believer or unbeliever, yesterday or today. The issue of existence is the same.

    Survival, Growth, Evolution.

    If anything, rich are less likely to evolve.

    First, the regression to the mean.

    But most importantly - the greatest economist of the Agrarian Era oracled 2000 years ago:

    "It is more difficult for a rich man to go to heaven (in today's terminology - have his great-great-great progeny) than for a camel to go through the needle."

    "The meek shall inherit the Earth". And indeed they did. And indeed they will.
  59. Man and Superman from Canada writes: aniphylactic shock troops from Victoria, Canada writes Much of Marx's analysis of the problems in Capitalism were precient and followed in a long line of economists looking at the system from Ricardo to Malthus to Mill and beyond

    If you are so inclined read the chapter on the tendency for the rate of profit to fall - this is THE cornersone of Marx's argument - that the contradictions of capitalism would lead to its demise - that capitalism was not sustainable - but in economic terms this tendency has not been shown to be valid for a variety or reasons

    another interesting aspect of Marx's argument regards the accummulation of surplus capital - The asiatic mode of production was by design an agrarian mode and not capable of surplus production. Marx saw it necessary that the destructive forces of capitalism replace the agrarian mode so that it could move onward - for Marx - western conquest was a necessary - condition for this process to occur

    lenin and a few others have taken the idea of imperialism further but still its interesting to see how Marx was "stuck" in his times just like any writer commenting on the political scene around him or her.
  60. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: "GylnnMhor: I think you're the one 'deceiving onesself'. By relative terms, the Kings of those times were far and away more wealthy relatively than people today."

    Not in the slightest.

    Health care alone is orders of magnitude better for welfarites today than for the kings of yesteryear. Even the poor can do what kings could only dream of; communicate with far off relatives, for example, or eat foods imported from thousands of kilometres away and still fresh for the table.
  61. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Syed, do you actually think that what you post makes any sense?
  62. Jerry Kitich from Hamilton, Canada writes: and Kings can do this because Marxism or socialism or communism has made the intervening years so much better?

    Kings didn't need to talk to far off relatives, they summoned them to appear before them or kept them in their royal court & saw them any & every day, instead of spending long hours at work like we do today separated from family

    they had the best food they could want in the immediate area, I'd love to feast at a royal banquet back then, fresh from the royal gardens

    they had state of the art medical care & they didn't get stuck with astronomical health care costs such as they have in America, uninsured never concerned them
  63. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: Man and Superman from Canada writes: ... this is THE cornersone of Marx's argument - that the contradictions of capitalism would lead to its demise - that capitalism was not sustainable - but in economic terms this tendency has not been shown to be valid for a variety or reasons.

    In time the internal contradictions will show themselves. This is the beauty of negative dialectics.
  64. The Bubble from Canada writes: I think the contradictions of an existence based on concentrated economic growth are all around us. I think those who see the markets retreat right now as a correction are very wrong. If it hadn't been for the war in Iraq, the economy would have tanked a few years ago and they can't stop it and it looks like America's desire for armed conflict in South America has been thwarted for now. Greece has gone communist and today Spain.
    Marx was nothing short of prophetic.
    Syed, you are wrong from the point of view that religion can never convert everyone on earth, people would die for their religion (or desire to have none) before they would die for dogma. At the same time as it is the bane of religion that there are so many of them, it is also it's beauty. The plethora of religions allows people to find one they are comfortable with. Keep religion out of government.
  65. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: The demise of capitalism appears to be well behind schedule.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.