@3 I don't think its fair to blame the bloody ongoing fallout of Bush II's invasion of Iraq on Karl Marx.

The only film I can imagine wanting to watch less than this one is a biopic about the young Adolph Hitler.

I much prefer part two where he’s mooching off the Trustafarian friend and impregnating the maid.

For fuck's sake, Charles:
https://www.scarecrow.com/54/138764/young-karl-marx.html
https://kcls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/1794187082_the_young_karl_marx_(dvd)
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/the-young-karl-marx-dvd-2017/33933573.p?skuId=33933573
https://decider.com/movie/the-young-karl-marx/

Some sparkly reviews out there too:

"With the sensibility of a very boring Downton Abbey and a political consciousness to match, The Young Marx is an insipid disaster."

"An excessively bourgeois film."

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_young_karl_marx/

Seriously Charles, as @7 points out, Scarecrow has it.

You remember Scarecrow, don’t you?

https://www.thestranger.com/film/feature/2015/06/10/22342408/scarecrow-video-2015-stranger-genius-award-nominee-in-film

It's like ra-a-ain on your weddin' day!

Always amusing, this breathless admiration for economic theories proven always disastrous when real world applications are attempted.

Leave out even that communism and all it's variants are unworkable. The kind of people attracted to leadership positions within them range from contemptible halfwit incompetents like Sawant to appalling psychopaths like Stalin and his long list of monstrous peers.

And yet pseudo intellectual posers like Mr Mudede still cling to these ridiculous ideas.

RIP original unresearched clickbait headline "The Only Place You Can Buy and Watch the Great Feature Film The Young Karl Marx Happens to Be Amazon". You'll be missed.

Thanks for preserving the original headline, @12.

Charles, you aren't going to own up to revising this piece to remove inaccuracies? Most respectable authors will note post-publication revisions in some manner, and perhaps even apologize. Not you though, apparently. Just sweep the bullshit under the rug and hope no one noticed.

@13

There is nothing wrong with this, this is ideologically correct. History must be continually adjusted to meet political requirements. It is difficult work and often thankless, but the cadre undertaking this labor is a true hero of the people.

A movie I'd be keen to watch. Thanks, CM.

@15: And it’s a much more gloriously efficient process if the contaminating material is simply not included in the first place, e.g. The Stranger’s deafening silence on the unenlightened responses of iron workers to Comrade Sawant’s gracious donation of our time to re-educate them.

Animal Crackers is the best Marx Brothers film. I've heard of Zeppo, Harpo, Chico and Groucho, but never knew about Karl....the Marx Brothers never cease to amaze me,,,

Amusing to see the same old refrains sung again. "But Stalin! Mao!" "It can never work!" Refrains endlessly sung at the behest of the powers that be, who have decreed that "Marxist" and "communist" are dirtier words than "fuck" or "shit."

Let us stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that the prescriptions of communism do not serve as an adequate answer to the problems Marx diagnosed.

Those problems do not instantly disappear.

I am not about to propose, like Charles, that everyone must read the Communist Manifesto and volume one of Capital. 19th century prose is wearying even with engaging subject matter, which economics most certainly is not.

So how about this? Just look at part 1 of the Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians. See if that does not offer a highly insightful picture of the world we live in.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

In other words, if you must dismiss Marx, at least read something of him first, so you know what you are dismissing. Why should I trust your criticism of the source material if you have never read it yourself?

@19

I suppose this means that any critic of regulated capitalism must read Keynes, too?

I won't presume, though, to say which parts of Keynes you must read, and which parts you must not only ignore, but also pretend do not exist at all, and never mention again. That approach seems to have several obvious problems, to me at least.

Hasn't anyone commenting here seen the movie? Didn't think so. Will certainly check it out, though - thanks - though not from Amazon

I still reminisce about the days when Scarecrow video was the evil empire in town. Think of all the carbon emissions caused by that institution..

@23

Marx's critique of capitalism specifically predicted the imminent collapse of capitalism. Instead it grew and expanded and evolved for the next 150 years (and counting).

Many aspects of Marx's actual economics (as distinct from his proposed political remedies) are testable, and of those not one has proven to be correct when compared to the data collected over the years. This is his critique of capitalism, and time has shown it to be anything but "dead on".

Marx did notice that people working industrial jobs were suffering, and the owners of the factories callous. But that's neither an economic theory nor a political policy, and it's rather telling he had quite a bit less to say about the working conditions of tenant agriculture work that preceded those industrial jobs.

150 years later in America, many working people mourn the loss of manufacturing, the loss of factory jobs, now prized rather than loathed. What part of Marx's writing predicted this nostalgia?

@24

Working Class People don't miss manufacturing jobs, they miss the paycheck.
If their new jobs at Walmart and Taco Bell paid as well as their old jobs on the factory floor, they wouldn't have nostalgia for manufacturing jobs.

@12-14,

There was an inaccuracy in the post title, corrected for once it was brought to his attention. If this was the embarrassing scandalous cover-up you dumbshits are suggesting it is, CM would have simply deleted the post in it's entirety. I'd be willing to wager the main reason he didn't chime in to the dim-witted comment section of a two paragraph long blog post to account for the error is not because he was brought to his very knees by you modern day Woodwards & Bernsteins, but rather because it's a beautiful fucking weekend and he's got better things to do with his time. On that note, I'm headed out the door to drink beer and play softball with friends, though I'm sure you determined sleuths are huddled in here for the long haul, determined to take down the deep state for the good of mankind. Godspeed, idiot brigade!

@25 - Obviously, but that does not answer the question I posed. Where did Marx predict anything like nostalgia for factory jobs? He predicted capitalism would collapse long before anything so strange as this could emerge. And yet it did not collapse. And it continues to not collapse, over and over again, every single time Charles Mudede or another student of Marx does an ideologically sound analysis and confidently concludes that capitalism must be very close to collapse.

@26 - Yes indeed, it sounds like you really are a person who knows how to have a good time, and not at all the sort who might spend part of a nice day begrudging people the opportunity to have a laugh at someone on the interenet.

@27

Workers don't have Nostalgia for manufacturing jobs, they miss being well-paid.
Therefore, your question is invalid.

The only reason capitalism hasn't collapsed is because the government has intervened time and time again.
In this country alone we have used taxpayer dollars multiple times to bail out Banks and other financial institutions.
If capitalism had to live or die on its own merits, it would have died decades ago.

People are afraid of Communism,and it’s human nature to lash out at what one is afraid of. I’m not afraid of communism. I think it works well in certain monastic environments, and has for centuries, but I’m not sold on it as a form of self-government. But of course the only places we’ve ever tried it was in horrid feudalistic countries that collapsed from the weight of their own corruption and inherited wealth.

@28

Well, if we're going to play that game, then all of your arguments are invalid, too!

I certainly understand why you want people to shut up and go away and stop pointing out the repeated and continuing failure of Marx's economic predictions. His explanations just feel so right, and so gratifyingly righteous, don't they?

But history simply refuses to cooperate. How infuriating!

Everyone can also read "why socialism" by Albert Einstein. Really simple and easy introduction to marxist thought.

@30

Sorry, I'm not defending Marx, but I am pointing out that your argument is invalid.

No one feels nostalgic for factory jobs. They feel nostalgic for earning a living wage.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Marx.

You should also note that you don't have to be a communist to realize that capitalism would not have survived this long without a great deal of government intervention.

I don't care if you shut up, and I don't care if you go away.
You can be wrong if you want to, but don't be surprised when people point out your errors.

Ah, the comments section!

@32

Oh my goodness, I didn't realize quite how petulant you'd get about capitalism's long-running and ongoing refusal to collapse!

Look, governments are components of any system of political economy, not external actors independent of the system. It makes no sense to say a governement has "intervened" to prevent the collapse of capitalism; the government IS capitalism, or at least the most important part of capitalism, just as the government IS communism, or any other system of politcal economy you might dream up. A political economy simply doesn't exist without rules describing the way it's supposed to work, and those rules have to be observed by the bulk of the people participating in it, or it ceases to be. You can insist on using words other than "government" to describe this social rule enforcement, but they'll all amount to the same thing.

Many aspects of Marx's critique of capital are testable. For someone who "isn't defending Marx," you sure are spending a hell of a lot of time trying to defend a specific testable aspect of his thinking-- one which has repeatedly and conclusively failed both in its descriptions and its predictions.

Capitalism simply does not collapse in the manner that Marx's theory says it should.

@34

"Capitalism simply does not collapse in the manner that Marx's theory says it should."

When did I say it would, or should?

I simply stated a fact.
Capitalism has failed multiple times in this country, and it would not have survived without multiple massive government interventions.

Nothing that you have said refutes that.
In fact, all you've done is attempt to explain why what I have said is true.

You have admitted that capitalism cannot survive without the intervention of the government.
"the government IS capitalism"
It sounds to me like you don't understand what capitalism is.
Good luck with that.

Socialists will demand you ignore all of the countries and governments that collapsed under it, yet see one homeless person or failed business in America and declare capitalism an abject failure on all fronts.

Then they will go to a warm, private home, able to fill their bellies with less than an hour's "labor," and whine on amazing technological devices built by corporations how shitty capitalism has made their lives.

@36&38

Capitalism in its purest form is trade between individuals unrestricted by government regulations.
Sure, you can have capitalism with government regulations, but that's just watered-down capitalism.
The market does not require a government.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of laissez faire capitalism any more than I was arguing for communism when I pointed out robotslave's error, I'm just pointing out a fact.
Capitalism hopes for the least government involvement possible.

@Teddy

I'm a capitalist. I own property, and I have Investments and savings. I don't want the system to fail, and not just because it would be bad for me personally, but because it would be bad for the nation.
Yes, it is true that we have seen the fall of many socialist countries. We only need to look South to Venezuela to see one falling apart right now.

The Great Recession was also only 10 years ago, and capitalist countries around the world had to use taxpayer money to bail out their Banks and save their economies.

We also have China, that purports to be a communist country, that is making huge advances on the world stage. Some people are even expecting that it will overtake the United States in power and prestige in just a few decades.
There are also a number of socialist countries in Europe that are doing well.

I'm wondering exactly who is "demanding that you ignore" anyting?
News exists, the internet exists, information exists.
Other people ignore facts about a variety of things all the time, that doesn't mean you or I have to ignore those facts.

@40: Two things: There is no reason to assume that the government HAD to bail out the banks, and many people did not want them to.

Second, anyone who thinks China (not a communist country, but let's stay on topic) is doing anything to knock America down from the reigning world power has no idea what China is and what they are doing.

They don't even have a blue water navy, and their economy is way more leveraged with government money and foreign investment than the US ever was. Look at how much of their GDP is involved in housing and construction (the construction of empty buildings and empty "cities.") Just wait until that bubble pops and comes crashing down. Look at how much of their population is uneducated and agrarian.

"Overtake the United States." My god, what a laugher.

@Teddy

I said China purports to be a communist country.
pur·port
verb
3rd person present: purports
pərˈpôrt/Submit
appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess.

I am well aware of the tactics that China has used to artificially inflated its GDP, but that doesn't take away from the fact that many analysts believe that China is on the rise and the United States is declining.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-to-overtake-u-s-economy-by-2032-as-asian-might-builds

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-us-vs-china-economy/

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-10-18/who-has-the-world-s-no-1-economy-not-the-u-s

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/11/09/goldman-sachs-ceo-lloyd-blankfein-chinese-economy-will-surpass-the-us.html

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/13/chinas-seen-globally-as-gaining-ground-on-united-states-putin-trump-xi/amp/

I should also point out that China holds about a trillion dollars of US debt.
Mind you, a trillion dollars is significantly less than the roughly 3 trillion dollars that China used to hold in U.S. debt.

By the way, China is in the process of expanding its military, including its Navy.

http://www.newsweek.com/china-military-expansion-global-construction-keeps-me-night-us-navy-secretary-837140?amp=1

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/01/china-plans-build-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier-amid-rapid/amp/

As far as the Chinese being uneducated and agrarian, I'm sure you realize it when the United States came to power at the end of World War II the United States was also mostly uneducated and agrarian.

@Teddy

"There is no reason to assume that the government HAD to bail out the banks, and many people did not want them to."

Why is it had in all caps?
I never said that world governments had to bail out their Banks during the financial crisis, I said they did bail them out.
Here in the United States, other sectors also received a bailout, including the Auto industry.
These industries were bailed out because the governments involved were afraid of the economic fallout.
Of course there were people who were against the bailouts. What difference does that make?

Seriously Teddy, you sound like you're grasping at straws.
It seems like the only reason you're making these arguments is because you want to disagree with me.
I had no idea I played such an important role in your life.
I'm touched.
Have a lovely day my friend.🌺🌻

Yep, China lies about its economy, lies about its currency, has massive amounts of foreign investments/dependence, and a military currently unable to project power beyond its borders.

Noticed you didn't post anything about how government money is keeping the whole nation going, and how much of their GDP is tied in dead-end construction projects and empty housing.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/government-intervention-is-the-only-thing-keeping-chinas-stock-market-afloat-2016-1

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-18/chinese-economy-rebounds-on-infrastructure-and-property-spending/8449276

It's all fake. It is all being driven by debt and the overvaluation of land and construction that actually has no real value.

Not even going to go into how stupid it is to compare present day China with America in the wake of WWII.

One tip though: posting dictionary definitions just makes you look like an angry 12 year old. You are supposed to grow out of that as a rhetorical tactic.

@43: My god man, get over yourself.

@46

Is that the test now Kenny?
Do capitalist have to actively object to every use of government power in order for capitalism to be anti-regulation?
Business interests are going to support the government when the government supports them, and opposed to government when the government opposes them.
That's just playing obvious Kenny.

Not my friend Teddy just told me that posting dictionary definitions is childish, but it seems necessary here.

cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/Submit
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

By the way, I used the word hope as a figure of speech, assuming that you would understand.
Obviously capitalism is not an individual, and capitalism does not have any thoughts or feelings.

You should also note that laissez-faire capitalists oppose all government regulation.

@Teddy

"Not even going to go into how stupid it is to compare present day China with America in the wake of WWII."
If you're not going "to go into it", then why even mention it?
You do that quite a lot.
In my opinion that's much more childish and angry then posting a words definition.
Anyway, I wasn't comparing present-day China to post World War II America.
I was comparing the average citizen of present-day China with the average citizen of post World War II America, specifically relating to their agrarian lifestyle and lack of higher education.

To clarify, I posted the definition of purportedly because it seemed to have gone over your head.
You see, we both agree that China is communist in name only, yet somehow you fail to recognize this fact, even though I stated it quite clearly in my initial comment.

"It's all fake. It is all being driven by debt and the overvaluation of land and construction that actually has no real value."
Is it just me, or does that sound exactly like what caused our most recent recession here in the United States?

The thing that I really find the most shocking though is the fact that you see China's foreign investment as dependency.
Somehow in your mind China buying our debt shows their weakness.
That is just fucking amazing.

The fact that you think that China doesn't projected military force beyond its own borders shows your true lack of engagement in world affairs.
You do know that the Chinese are turning Islands into military bases in the South China Sea, don't you?
The Japanese see that as a projection of power outside of China's border.
China is also building military bases in Africa.

http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-military-conduct-africa-live-fire-drills-beijing-seeks-expand-global-722526?amp=1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2017/10/10/china-is-most-likely-to-open-future-military-bases-in-these-3-countries/amp/

This tidbit here seems the weirdest by far though Teddy:

"Noticed you didn't post anything about how government money is keeping the whole nation going, and how much of their GDP is tied in dead-end construction projects and empty housing."

I didn't know that I needed to provide links to prove my point when we are in agreement.
Did you not see this part of my previous post?

"I am well aware of the tactics that China has used to artificially inflated its GDP...."

They build bridges, tear them down and rebuild them, and all of the construction and demolition counts towards their GDP.

If I have to start posting links when we agree, this is going to take a lot longer.

I had no idea that I'd spark such an argument.

I will point out that, to the extent "capitalism" has not yet collapsed as Marx predicted, it is because we have taken steps that were distinctly socialist or even communist in order to counteract that collapse. The 1930s is a good example of this, when capitalism was in complete collapse and the capitalist prescription, "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system," was a complete and total disaster.

I wouldn't advocate for Marx's solutions to these problems any more than I'd advocate for 19th century medical practices for the treatment of disease. Nevertheless, that does not prevent me from recognizing the contributions of Marx just as much as someone like Pasteur.

All y'all fuckers arguing that capitalism hasn't collapsed because it hasn't collapsed need to visit an optometrist, because you're all short sighted af.

150 years? Srsly?? Read a little history for fuck sake. That's absolutely nothing. And i'd posit that with all the news of climate collapse (it's a result of the unspoken internal contradiction of capitalism, and it's really, really happening, kids), the whole fucking species may not have more than another 100 years left, let alone your precious capitalism.

That would be risible if it weren't so tragic and absurd. And it shreds your stupid argument all to hell.

Communism lasted about 70 years before it collapsed from internal contradictions. If you think 250 years, or even 600, if you want to start counting from Columbus, is a fantastic run, i have a habitable planet to sell you.

Just bc you choose to be willfully ignorant of those contradictions in capitalism doesn't mean they aren't going to bite you or your grand/kids in the ass.

Read a fucking book, ffs.

AH, THE COMMENTS SECTION

@50

250 years?

Columbus?

Dear god, you think Capitalism is an American invention, don't you.

You might need to sample a wider variety of "fucking books" there, scholar.