HOME | DD
Latuff2 β Karl Marx, The Prophet
by-nc-nd
Published: 2009-03-05 16:44:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 36856; Favourites: 174; Downloads: 9724
Redirect to original
Description
To be published by the Sindicato dos Servidores das Justicas Federais no Estado do Rio de Janeiro (SISEJUFE-RJ).High resolution versions for printing purposes here: [link]
And here: [link]
Related content
Comments: 60
Brilliant poster, just finished reading the book the Mexican cartoonist and artist Rius wrote about him
π: 2 β©: 0
FascistΒ peopleΒ makeΒ youΒ believeΒ thatΒ isΒ wrong,Β butΒ it'sΒ aΒ lie,Β alwaysΒ hadΒ reason.
π: 0 β©: 0
How about if those capital owners asks for thugs?
π: 0 β©: 0
This is pretty accurate to what's happening now, lets hope that OCCUPY can stop them.
π: 0 β©: 0
i don't have a political stance on this, but it is pretty freaking hilarious
π: 0 β©: 0
Capitalism was much, much worse. Especially considering that Russia, Cuba, and North Korea are actually State Capitalism rather than a worker-controlled Communism.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is pretty funny. Much of what Marx says is applicable to today and interesting to behold, but sometimes the guy is just wacko.
π: 0 β©: 0
Practically being a Marxist, I enjoy this cartoon. However, I don't think that's actually a quote from Das Kapital...*not that I've memorized it or something, heavens no!*
...LIVE IN CANADA XD
π: 0 β©: 0
I really like Latuff's cartoons, i like Karl Marx too, infact i'm a marxist, but this quote does not belongs to Kapital and does not belongs Karl Marx. This is a bogus quote.
read this;
--------------
[link]
Many blogs posted this Karl Marx quote lately and some people get it via forwarded emails and text messages:
Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks which will have to be nationalized and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.
Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867
Sounds really good, doesnβt it? Itβs like heβs about to say βand then Barack Obama will come as save the day with his renewable energy masterplan!β
However, when searching through the Das Kapital book this quote is nowhere to be found. Where did it come from? Nostradamus maybe? (It was Trzisno resenje to spot the oddity first.)
update a reader solves the mystery in the comments below:
LOL says: The whole and real quote is βThe owners of capital will stimulate the need of the working class to take expensive, collateral loans to buy their condos, houses and technological products; and, at the end, these unpaid debts will result in the nationalization of the banks upon their bankrupcy, and so the state will be on the pathway to communismβ and belongs to Pat Caufield of the Department of Education in a satyrical United States who started a re-education programme for kids to prepare the transition to communism
----------------
π: 0 β©: 0
If you had told Marx on his deathbed that the first and largest country to embrace communism would be russia, he'd have laughed in your face. His plan was for a state to first be a democracy, and then make the next logical step into socialism. That way there would be a base of money and good will to work off of.
π: 0 β©: 1
This is very true, you can't carry out the 'redistribution of wealth' when there's not much wealth to begin with. He intended Communism for the already economically powerful countries of the era such as Britain and Germany, not primarily agrarian countries like Russia and China, both tried to skip the Capitalism stage and violently enforced Communism (rather than gradually embracing it) and ended up starving millions to death.
π: 0 β©: 1
Glad to see somebody agrees.
π: 0 β©: 1
oh my god! Evil-Stan, BurroDiablo! You absolutely right!
Did somebody knows, that Lenin in 1921 founded NEP (capitalism in fact)? [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
my goodness, i had no idea
π: 0 β©: 0
The prophet of doom, amirite?
Dude, he was a frickin' commie. He would say anything to get asspats.
π: 0 β©: 3
You say communism as if it's something bad.
π: 0 β©: 0
please read something about communism...he was not only a communist, he was one scientists who create the idea of communism.
π: 0 β©: 1
he was also very displeased with the interpitations people made out of his work
π: 0 β©: 1
Commie or not, he was right...
π: 0 β©: 0
What I find ironic is how a man who believed religion to be the opium of the people has earned himself such religious connotations even today.
π: 0 β©: 0
I will say that with the economic "crisis", that must happen. The masses will have to rise up and destroy the CEO paper tigers and their democrat and republican allies in the government and bring justice to the people!
π: 0 β©: 0
I really like this cartoon. It's a good quote from Marx. Would it be okay if my fiancee uses this for a working peoples' aid and relief organization he coordinates, the Red Star Society?
[link]
It'd be much appreciated.
π: 0 β©: 0
But Marxism/Communism is and will never be a win. The capitalism's critique is excellent, but we cannot live without capitalism with its contradictions because it's built on how our brains and social relations work.
π: 0 β©: 1
So, basically, we just need to be passive and let capitalism fuck us in the butt without changing anything. Got it.
π: 0 β©: 1
All the wannabe revolutions against the system got absorbed by it easily because the system is the most powerful of all (Guevara T-shirts anyone? Converse is a brand too; etc.). That energy can be oriented on improving the system and building upon it, something that's already being done but not with full power.
π: 0 β©: 1
And what if the fundamental design of the system is inherently self-destructive? (Interesting that you'd cite Guevara but not a Marxist-Leninist.) "Because the system is the most powerful of all..." That's the kind of attitude a prison bitch takes, but I doubt it's at all healthy for humanity. You've acknowledge that "improvements" have been made to the system, but that doesn't mean anything beyond putting it on life-support (as in Roosevelt's New Deal or, in our time, Obama's various economic reforms).
And no, not all revolutions were "absorbed" by capitalism "easily". It took almost a century to erode socialism from inside the Soviet Union (via the subversive influence of Trotsky and the so-called "de-Stalinization" reforms of Khrushchev and his successors, all gradually re-capitalizing Eastern Europe). Despite Chairman Mao's more "state-capitalist" tendencies, his revolution against the Chinese reactionaries and tyrannical bourgeoisie raised the standard of living in China immediately. That same standard of living has been on the rise ever since, and in fact it threatens to, within a few generations, to overtake the standard of living in the States. It used to be that the Chinese were lucky to have most of a new generation survive past infancy; now they're so populous they need to get a handle on reproduction.
Sorry, but I don't think privatization of production and profit-exploitation really make a system worthy of "improving on". We're going to continue to slump into recessions, rising and falling, progressively socializing the economy just to keep capitalism afloat, until we hit the bottom so hard the system just devours itself. People like me would rather cushion the fall than pretend like it's not coming.
π: 0 β©: 1
No it does not mean putting it on "life support." The system is pervasive -- what happens by building on it is putting people on life support instead!
You can't say that the conditions of workers today is worse than before can you?
Today there's also the social responsibilities of companies, there's care for the environment (egocentrically but it's more than welcome even this way), and also for the socially deprived (fair trade and whatnot).
Education is also very important to consider here. People need to be aware of the workings of the system they live in in their formative years. Education can sometimes go countercurrent of wat the system would really want and that's a healthy thing.
What happened in the Soviet was a fiasco. They were slowly rebuilding the system they were against in the first place.
Marx's thorough analysis of capitalism is to the point and even today we learn from it, but the second part, what he suggested as an alternative was a total failure. It was only a desperate dreamer's utopia that can never be achieved in large human society.
π: 0 β©: 1
No it does not mean putting it on "life support." The system is pervasive -- what happens by building on it is putting people on life support instead!
That's really kind of a naive response, especially considering the examples I cited and the situations surrounding them.
You can't say that the conditions of workers today is worse than before can you?
I can say it is as unjust, even if overt maltreatment, in the form of physical abuse and negligence, has been successfully done away with in our country for the most part. And who do we have to thank for that? Who do we have to thank for the abolishment of child labor and the establishment of a livable wage and a reasonable work day? None other than socialist labor unions.
Today there's also the social responsibilities of companies, there's care for the environment (egocentrically but it's more than welcome even this way), and also for the socially deprived (fair trade and whatnot).
This is also an incredibly naive comment, particularly considering that environmental regulations are battled at every turn by corporate interests in the name of "freedom". Anything that has been tediously extracted from the capitalist class is only a pacifying concession, and even these concessions are constantly threatened. These "responsibilities" have done nothing to alleviate poverty. The most they've done is to lighten scrutiny on the offending parties.
What happened in the Soviet was a fiasco. They were slowly rebuilding the system they were against in the first place.
There isn't enough facepalm on the planet to deal with this comment.
The standard of living in the U.S.S.R., before the "de-Stalinization" reforms of Khrushchev and his successors (which were "rebuilding" capitalism and eroding socialism from the inside out), was extremely high for the proletariat class, not only despite what is considered common wisdom (often without base), but also high especially in regards to how technologically backwards Eastern Europe had been. Literacy had been something only the rich could attain. By Stalin's time, over 90% of the population was literate and educated. Although famine occurred in the Ukraine, the Union's response to it was quick and effective, very much in spite of Robert Conquest's inflated figures. The "Soviet," by which you mean the Union, was hardly a fiasco until capitalism reared its ugly head.
Marx's thorough analysis of capitalism is to the point and even today we learn from it, but the second part, what he suggested as an alternative was a total failure.
Which goes to explain why the standard of living in the Soviet Union was so high, and why industrialization and electrification occurred so rapidly? Does this also go to explain why the standard of living in China shot upwards after the Party achieved power? Does this explain the thriving economies of the Israeli kibbutzim? Does this explain the oddly high quality of life in non-modern "proto-communist" tribes, such as in the North American native nations, in which there existed no concept of private ownership?
It was only a desperate dreamer's utopia that can never be achieved in large human society.
You mean like "If you just work hard, you'll definitely get what you deserve?" Or how about a society in which there's "free competition" within a market, and that this raises the standard of living? (The latter is especially ridiculous, considering that already-powerful interests can flood the market with their products, lowering their prices, whenever competition arises, thus snuffing it out, only to "cap" production again to artificially stifle supply to increase profit.) Capitalism is really the more insanely idealistic concept: "If we just let individuals claim resources for their private use and let them do whatever they want, shit will work itself out."
π: 0 β©: 1
"Who do we have to thank for the abolishment of child labor and the establishment of a livable wage and a reasonable work day? None other than socialist labor unions."
We are saying the same thing. Socialism is not a revolution, it's only an adjustment of the system.
Moreover livable wages and no child labor benefit the system: higher salaries create more demand meaning more consumption, and eradicating child labor means putting those kids in school so that they can be more valuable laborers later.
I'm telling you education is important, because it's a blade with two ends and can be used to format people to become the sheep of the system.
For the high quality of life of the natives, kibbutz communities, and China, I think it's very questionable.
As for that of the Union, I don't think so because from my prior documentation I've learnt the opposite.
What I'm trying to say is that in any system even in that dreamed of by Marx, there has to be a few who hold power over the majority. Look what happened from within the Union withe the nomenklatura. Communism to me is a sort of democracy, and democracy can be one hell of a tyranny, so it isn't something to look forward to even if it's possible besides a revolution.
π: 0 β©: 1
We are saying the same thing. Socialism is not a revolution, it's only an adjustment of the system.
Moreover livable wages and no child labor benefit the system: higher salaries create more demand meaning more consumption, and eradicating child labor means putting those kids in school so that they can be more valuable laborers later.
See: [link]
I'm telling you education is important, because it's a blade with two ends and can be used to format people to become the sheep of the system.
Which, apparently, you're in favor of, seeing as how you don't want a better system... you want to keep this one and just expect to "tweak" it until all your problems vanish. It's a little like Microsoft... They keep building on their same shitty systems without changing anything fundamental, which is why all their "improvements" yield only the exact same problems.
For the high quality of life of the natives, kibbutz communities, and China, I think it's very questionable.
China's increased standard of living is a well-documented fact, as is that of the kibbutzim. Not much exists of Native American history following colonization.
As for that of the Union, I don't think so because from my prior documentation I've learnt the opposite.
I had already addressed this, particularly concerning certain "statistics" being inflated as a means of propagandizing against communism in imperial-capitalist states, which contradicts readily available information, as well as personal recollection (ask the founder of the CPDA right here on this site).
What I'm trying to say is that in any system even in that dreamed of by Marx, there has to be a few who hold power over the majority.
Then you've never read Das Kapital or the Manifesto, much less made any attempt to explore the application of socialism. No one who has would ever say anything so egregiously incorrect.
Communism to me is a sort of democracy, and democracy can be one hell of a tyranny...
. . . Are you drunk?!
π: 0 β©: 0
To buy stuff with debt is slightly not right. To get loan after bad debt is more wrong. Greedy capitalists just don't care. Bonus-earning managers also won't care, nobody cares.
Consumerism economy supported by debt itself is very wrong. That's the vicious principle of "no down", don't want to know everyone else' problem and shit all over the place until it gets worse and affect the whole system.
π: 0 β©: 0
maybe the conclusion was right philosophically, but there is too many variables in the economy to just predict something, but anything linking "unlimited growth" on a "limited market" smells like wrong. Marx contributed to modern views of the economy, but his vision wasn't complete either.
π: 0 β©: 0
I can't seem to find the exact source of this quote. I've read that it's from Das Kapital (The Capital), but I can't find the quote itself....
Can anybody help?
π: 0 β©: 0
exelent!
can i tranlate the words to spanish and print or put in a blog... ? of course with your name on it
π: 0 β©: 0
problem, reaction, solution ... friggin' illuminati
π: 0 β©: 0
Well we are getting free-health care out of this I guess
π: 0 β©: 0
Damn crisis, the world will not be the same never more, after this.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>