| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Marxs 'The Communist Manifesto' set to clips of Cartoons curiously pronouncing the point.
Category:Cartoons & Animation, News & Politics
Tags:communism, Philosophy, marx, duck tales, Karl
Submitted:LetsFistAgain
Date:12/11/07
Views:2130
Rating:
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video
Favorited 4 Times

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
Siskel & Ebert review 'Jaws: The Revenge'
Ellen Degeneres speaks to Tulane University
Orly Taitz vs The Painter Of Pancakes
Worst Bid on the Price Is Right
Old rubber spine
Glitter N' Gold
Clever Japanese Commercial
John Lovitz in opening scene of Todd Solondz' "Happiness"
Stephen Fry goes to a college football game
VENOM Public Service Announcement #2
Comment count is 17
snothouse
That was a lot of work.
Speedy Gonzalez cartoon images are unnervingly on point.
Billy Buttsex
FUCK. Sometimes I forget why I was a commie at one point and I start making fun of them, but hearing Marx makes me wanna go back.
Jefka
'Cuz clearly Marx's writings have had a constructive social impact, right?

svraz
Right. Seriously.

Cap'n Profan!ty
Hey, chuckleheads, you can no more rightly lay revolutionary Communist movements at Marx's feet than you can rightly lay eugenics and Nazism at the feet of Darwin. Both are bankrupt misapplications of a general principle. If you buy into Marx's analysis, you don't have to buy into the predictions; even if you buy into the predictions, he's only saying what will be, not that you have to go out and make it happen. That's a battle fought later within European communist movements.

If Marx and even the early Lenin writings are taken at face value, the methods by which the "revolution" was carried out are anathema to the entire process. Russia? That's not where anything was supposed to happen.

Billy Buttsex
Yes, yes... we know. It's just that Marx is SO GOOD at pointing out our social ills and making us want to get up and kick some ass. Whether it worked or not, or ever WILL work is something else. Either way, I can't help but think Marx is charismatic, intelligent, and interesting.

TimbolinoBilchard
The guy even SOUNDS like a communist.
Blaise
Thank god You Tube didn't arrive until after we won the Cold War.
TinManic
i can't stand this guys voice.
Roachbud
Jesus was a Communist
x
Jesus was a bouncer. John 2:13-25

TimbolinoBilchard
Jesus was also a magician. Matthew 17:24-27.

Roachbud
Jesus was a communist
Jesus was a pacifist
Jesus was a communist
Jesus didn't like the rich

Jesus was a communist
Jesus was a pacifist
Jesus was a communist
If Jesus saw you he'd be pissed

Rodents of Unusual Size
This was exhaustively done. I would have five starred it anyway, but the imagery of the Speedy Gonzalez mice behind the fence kicks this up a notch.
Cap'n Profan!ty
The thing is, Marx wasn't wrong. His analysis was always pretty close to spot-on. The rhetoric (Engels's contribution) and the prognostication were what was wrong; their appropriation by a self-interested political revolutionary cadre, appointed to carry out these supposed changes, were what rendered them untouchable.

Marx is still worth reading. When you read his work, and understand it, you immediately begin to see both why industrial Europe feared the analysis, and why it was so damn popular in the parts of the world under the worst exploitation.

But the predictions Marx made? Not so good. He's in a boat with Malthus on that one.

Goofy Gorilla
My problem with Marx is that he really thought people could change. Workers should fight for their rights because it benefits them, not because there is an ideal society to strive for. I mean private property is a thing. It will last for all time as it's ingrained in the brain. A refusal to deal with private property in perpetuity is an incredible mistake.

That being said, Marx was pretty smart to bring up obvious differences in the benefits to society and the benefits to a small section of society in any political action. I think the class system is crude and simplistic, but this was a long time ago.

The traditional division is between Adam Smith and Marx, but really Marx's ideas don't conflict with those of Smith except on one point: the ability of mankind to change its core reasoning. Marx said it could be different; Smith never really cared.

paranex
Goofy, take an anthropology class: The concept of ownership, and by proxy private property, was clearly alien to many cultures. The Aztecs, for example, didn't believe even their own lives were "owned" by them, which is why they considered human sacrifice so noble. Most foraging cultures likewise would've had no use for private property because they didn't rely on domesticated, settled land to survive. The Lockean idea that property is a result of how humanity acts within the state of nature is just not true: It's predicated on the idea that people labor to cultivate land to survive, but that would only really apply to cultures which rely on agriculture. In fact, because property implies man being above nature, many cultures that practiced agriculture would've disagreed with it (such as the Cherokees of the 18th century).

So it's obviously not a part of our "core reasoning." Which is irrelevant, considering that by Marx's of private property, none of us even own any of it to begin with (unless you own a factory or a railroad, in which case you are the exception).

Not to mention, any time a political idea is based on "state of nature" arguments, whether Hobbes', Locke's, Rousseau's or Marx's, they're usually bullshit.


Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement