Many years ago , when I was young ….hahaha I read and emphatically believe in the démocratic workers control !
Yes it appeared to be the solution for humanity.
As I read your enlightening article my heart fell into my shoes
Yes we blindly applied the theories , un aware of how Marx was funded n how he fitted into the global technicalogical , algorithmic global future that is implemented in today’s world
Religion has an interesting 'development' as the sense of self in life and cosmos.
The rational superstructure of modernity used word and mind magick to repackage our religious inheritance into complex financial instruments of narratives/myths set by the 'light of Reason' and crowned by industrial and technological reach as a socially progressive (unstoppable) 'evolution'.
That an idol of reason and progress operates a collective tyranny is masked by the extension or development of the Model - to which life is sacrificed as virtue or necessity under an increasing stark reversal of the natural order.
Post-modern has to run as post-truth and thus as an insane operating system for the management of its own rationally induced hallucinations (outputs of partial and conflicted predicates).
It thus runs a form of demonic possession or parasitism arising from our own dispossession or sleep set in evasions of true responsibility.
For my part I use the 'script' playing out as the world to identify 'back doors or correspondences in my own thought and identity of habit.
I thus seek to recognise patterns operating in the open, that actually serve as repackaged guilt or control set in social masking order.
The point of discerning true from false is the embrace of one by the release of the other. That the 'mind' of ego or control is always seeking to reframe life as its domain of judgement is where joy in life holds open a truly connected capacity for discernment. I cant set values to fixed quantities, but can arrive at a sense of just or proportionate exchange of acknowledgment or right of being.
In the book I mentioned below - it used the 'lost science of money' in regard to living principles that cannot be systemised to dead algorithms set by insider cliques. There is a place for cancelling or even nullification of debts from a higher moral order than contractual entanglements running indentured service or slavery.
But moral order has been substituted for by 'moral accusation and judgements' seeking for (and being used by) corruptions of power.
Restoring true presence as a basis for living from is denied by a past invoked to stamp its boot on the face of a present that repeats into a 'future' forever denied.
All words are degraded by misuse or abuse, but mercy and forgiveness have an original beneath the counterfeit. You do not have to deserve life in your own or anyone else's terms, to be or exist as a living creative being, but by your own terms and conditions you can disallow or block the creative for whatever reasons or preferences you accept by using.
A locked down mindset cannot really think. It only runs as a tool for a 'thinking' that absolves it from creative participation in life - so to run in a bubble of convenience. No blame here - but invitation to notice thoughts, feelings and reactions beneath the 'screen' of a visually dominated system of coded meanings.
(Even though some of what we uncover is associated with deep pain in life).
Hello, my first comment here (from France and a French person ^^), and congratulations on the work !
On the subject, I read a few things about Marx. In particular :
The curious thing about Marx was that in many ways he was as much a product of the emancipation of the Jews of south-western Germany as the Rothschilds themselves. He admits as much, indeed, in a little-read footnote to volume III of Capital, appended to a rather good section on the nature of financial panics:
Immediately after the February Revolution, when commodities and securities were extremely depreciated and utterly unsaleable, a Swiss merchant in Liverpool, Mr B. Zwilchenbart – who told this to my father – cashed all his belongings, travelled with cash in hand to Paris and sought out Rothschild, offering to participate in a joint enterprise with him. Rothschild looked at him fixedly, rushed towards him, grabbed him by his shoulders and asked: “Avez-vous de l’argent sur vous?” – “Oui, M. Le baron.” – “Alors vous êtes mon homme!”
Much as he wanted to hate capitalism, Marx could never quite conceal his enthusiasm for the bourse– to the extent that he himself briefly became a ‘day-trader’ in 1864.
Whoever wrote it, without committing a name to the script, left out the fact that Marx and Engels, especially the former, went FAR beyond the Manifesto in subsequent years, wrote in the introduction to the 25th anniversary re-issue that a lot of it was now either wrong or outdated, but they did not feel it appropriate to revise a historical document to align it with the (then) present. You wouldn’t know that unless you’d seen the re-issue and wouldn’t understand without reading Capital and even The Grundrisse and The Civil War in France that Marx came to see the need to abolish banks, money and the state, at the start of a revolutionary transformation (“Critique of the Gotha Program”).
"David Ricardo helped establish central banking currency monopoly with the Bank Charter Act of 1844. Four years later, Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto, explicitly citing Ricardo's labour theory of value as foundational to his analysis. Marx was building on theoretical frameworks that were already connected to central banking interests.”
Utter nonsense. Marx took pains to explain how his theory of value was a fundamental break with the theory of value developed by Adam Smith and later updated by David Ricardo.
your mistake is that you place too much faith in what they say, as opposed to what they do. and marx was a notorious liar who inverted the intent of just about everything (in addition to being an awful human being in general).
those are just words. and funny you should mention the grundrisse because of all his writings that align the best, the fragment on machines iis pretty much perfect. but, hey, marx himself said that was totally because 'x' so hey, no conflict of interest in using marx to dispel with that, right?
sure, marx and engels later admitted parts of the manifesto were outdated — but they never retracted its central planks, did they now?
as for ricardo, the important part is structural - both Smith/Ricardo and Marx reduce value to a singular measurable unit, in marx's case it became 'socially necessary labor time' but it's still a metric.
"sure, marx and engels later admitted parts of the manifesto were outdated — but they never retracted its central planks, did they now?"
FALSE! When one calls for the abolition of money, what sense does it make to create a ... bank?
" in marx's case it became 'socially necessary labor time' but it's still a metric."
Only in YOUR mind. Socially necessary labor time cannot be measured with any accuracy even were the world linked to a light speed processing super computer. It is an abstract quantity which can never be actually known. And Marx's idea was to get rid of it, eliminate it as the basis of social production.
You are confusing the ideas of Marx with those of the Bolsheviks, as well as the Second International, for whom "socialism" morphed into state capitalism (explicitly stated so by Lenin). The Bolsheviks just wanted to do it via a coup, rather than elections.
and marx did call for it as a 'transitional measure' (like so many other, where he 'forgets' to describe how they 'wither away'..
'centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly'
so, in other words, we're back to the 'withering away of the dictatorship' which none of you pious marx believers appear to be able to explain.
compunded lies, in other words
>SNLT can’t be measured … Marx’s idea was to get rid of it.
yet another of those bullshit "hay guys trust me, on the other side of communism" lines
so - again - where did marx credibly explain how the dictatorship of the proletariat would wither away? we can start with you replying credibly to these three, but in reality, it all comes back to the same question which marx 'forgot' to reply to
In Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875, Marx called for the abolition of money. You can look that up. "Centralization of Credit" is from the Manifesto, 1847. . You are trying to confuse people, or else are confused yourself.
> In Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875, Marx called for the abolition of money
yeah, and where does that lead, given that he recommended early stage input output analysis through producer-consumer pairs in das kapital? i tell you exactly where it leads - to a situation where you have to surveil absolutely every material, and not just money.
as for the elimination of money itself - no, he didn't actually suggest that wholesale. instead, people would receive 'vouchers' for 'social labour value' - ie, he eliminated currency by introducing a different kind of currency. marx's writings are chock full of these non-solutions, because all of it is one giant inversion.
also, im not trying to "confuse people" but since you posted that preposterous nonsense
where did marx explain, realistically, how the dictatorship would 'wither away'?
it's a key issue in your religion. because he didn't. your ideology has a giant gap, right at the centre of it - because he wasn't actually deeply concerned with ever leaving the state of dictatorship.
"as for the elimination of money itself - no, he didn't actually suggest that wholesale. instead, people would receive 'vouchers' for 'social labour value' - ie, he eliminated currency by introducing a different kind of currency. marx's writings are chock full of these non-solutions, because all of it is one giant inversion."
Vouchers in his plan were NOT "currency," since they could not be circulated.
"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor."
"he recommended early stage input output analysis through producer-consumer pairs in das kapital? i"
Analysis of CAPITALISM, not of a different society. You are being deceptive again, or unclear.
"where did marx explain, realistically, how the dictatorship would 'wither away'?"
He called for the destruction of the state in The Civil War in France, and went even further in his Ethnographic Notebooks, which were not published as a book till the 1970s, since they are just notes/
"your ideology has a giant gap, right at the centre of it - because he wasn't actually deeply concerned with ever leaving the state of dictatorship."
I am not ideological. I eschew the very term "Marxist" because it implies turning Marx's analysis into an ideology. Marx himself rejected "Marxism" when he proclaimed "I am not a Marxist." though he did so in French. I prefer "Marxian" or "historical materialist," a la E.P. Thompson.
His term "dictatorship" became meaningless by the 1870s because the vast majority of the population had become the working class. It simply meant that the vast majority would prevent a tiny minority from exercising continued tyrannical control over society, as with the 0.1% today over the 99.9%.
...key insights escapekey...i must look deeper into this, if i understand correctly u imply that the Manifesto, etc is a coup in terms of subversive and deceptive long term strategy...considering Marx's parental rabbinic background, on his father's side, do u think the bankers predominantly of Zionist persuasion and tendencies?.. i realize that u may have indicated elsewhere... 🙏➕🙏...
This is a really sharp and detailed text – and most importantly you managed to connect Marx’s points with what is happening in code and monetary protocols today.
The point you are making is this:
Marx was not purely a “workers’ revolutionary”, but an intellectual tool for legitimising centralisation.
The Manifesto can be read as a blueprint for the consolidation of power – only the proletariat was a rhetorical cover.
Technocracy today implements exactly the same mechanisms, but instead of the open political dictatorship of the proletariat we have “neutral” algorithms, ESG metrics, CBDCs and platform protocols.
Central banking is the basic pillar: if you control the money, you don’t need factories or armies.
The revolution has already happened – but quietly, through legislation, protocols, clearing systems and code.
If you wanted to cut it down even further, it could be summarized in three sentences:
👉 The Manifesto was not a guide to freedom, but to centralization.
👉 Algorithms and monetary policy today implement exactly the centralization that Marx wrote about.
👉 Workers were never meant to be the goal - only the means.
"The Communist Manifesto presents itself as a precise plan for centralized control, because that is precisely what it is. ... The great reversal is that this plan was not implemented by the proletariat, but by the emerging technocratic and financial elite."
J. B. E. Goldstein calls this "oligarchic collectivism". It is not a book of fiction (although it appears in G. Orwell's "1984"), and it reveals to us some aspects and methods of political power, in the continuity of Machiavelli's The Prince.
Systems theory runs a rationalising quantification of life as predictively defined, modelled and thus pre-emptively applied (as an internalised control system).
Structure based identity operates an invested stake in the substitution of control for a qualitative discernment of life - which can be seen as an open system or an order of orders that operates as a whole - that is of synchronicities emergent from an otherwise discarded or mapped out Infinity.
But the signature of the underlying definitions remains discernible within the projections of the 'social or collective order' as visibility of otherwise hidden assumptive identity/reality.
I recently read The Lost Science Of Money ~ The Mythology Of Money : The Story Of Power by Stephen A. Zarlenga - in which Marxist thought was presented as a 'controlled opposition' for the protection of the controls developing through banking as the usurp of money power.
The author presents the case that just money is a creature of law which must embody moral integrality as support for life as transparent to public accountability.
The use of anyone's ideas is distinct from the author's original intention - but the nature of Money Power as a stealth means to incentivise outcomes, works the filters and rules of weaponisation and marketisation to which truth or integral value or meaning is sacrificed for 'gain of function' framed to an insider elitism.
I read once that the Fabian movement permitted a wide range of freedom of thought and expression subject only to non-negotiable conviction that Life is a closed system of depleting resource necessitating war for survival - ergo Life = War. By all and every means.
Thus all that seems not to be war provides a means to mask and manipulate those who seek in 'illusions' of value or meaning that must be sacrificed or discarded (to qualify for inclusion and access to insider privilege).
While illusions of love or peace are not hard to find, the existence of counterfeits is actually evidence for true currency of exchange. A qualitative discernment is lost to a war-mind - for it can only seek as guilt, fear, and threat dictate. Thus control runs as a substitution for what love actually is and does - as a unifying and aligning integrality.
Models for predictive or pre-emptive utility may serve in limited ranges of application.
The mass migration (dissociative displacement) to systemic capture under biotech modelling thus demands systemic limiting of conscious participation to a tooled permission-slip of compliance as means to maintain access to resources for life support.
Arguing with an abuser will persist in the experience of abuse and further train the abuser in the means to sustain the appearance of a relationship (where there is only the intent to use or substitute relationship by war (possession and control).
Leaving or dropping the false identification is the gift of a true recognition and thus relational honesty or integrality. But the payoffs or believed gains (or mitigations of pains) associated with the false operates as the inner gaslighting of a 'comfort zone' established within abuse or dys-function. Such inner-conflict of split allegiance can play out in externalised projections of war between polarised good and evil - when at heart the conflict is undone by a decision to be whole. No matter how much we think we want our substitutes for connection, security or power in peace, they all share the singular attribute of failing to unfold true fulfilment, while providing the 'hit' of a sense of life, already 'snatched' from our grasp. Ritual re-enactments run hollow, increasing the tension for stimulus enslaves to tension release cycles.
Machined thinking tools the mind that made it to 'see' a world it 'gains' at cost of whole-souled participation.
The Creative is not as idealised forms set 'special' but as uncovered integrality of being.
A 'zero trust' order offers a robotic ego management system on the basis of masking manipulation as the social prerogative. I also see this as the masking, and mapping of guilt and sacrifice via incentivised narratives as the underpinning of systemic sin, sacrifice and death. Guilt OS runs the substitution for God - in the sense of creative, qualitative, wholeness of living the moment and the day at hand. Grievance and vengeance operate the 'countermeasures' to any real process of addressing and healing conflicts - that have become drivers of 'economy' as vested 'identities' framed in fake 'solutions'.
Idols don't fall because they are attacked, but because they represent misplaced faith and generate compounding fear of pain of loss under false dictates. That were accepted or used as a means to escape or 'scape consequence away from a sense of self 'control'.
The proof is in the pattern, alright. Chat with AI about some hypothesis and see what results suit your theory, or bias. But it remains speculative, drawn from juxtaposition of disparate sources into elaborate, esoteric typology of ideas and sheer gobbledegook referred to history absent its material reality (as Marx might have noted). Here's where the technocratic inversion 'lies', echoed in your ad hominem below that Marx was "a notorious liar who inverted the intent of just about everything (in addition to being an awful human being in general)." Maybe you should back off from the abyss, for your own sake.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
hah, you accuse me of “gobbledegook” while leaning on orwell to make your point - ie a pattern-recognition exercise.
the fact that technocratic power inverts reality through abstractions doesn’t make abstractions irrelevant. how you came up with that ludicrous leap is beyond me.
besides, another "you should totally not do x" comment. maybe back off posting meta-handwaving instead of dodging the issue.
alternatively, explain where exactly Marx laid out a workable exit plan from the dictatorship of the proletariat. or, you know, claim it's 'sophistry' to even ask for that like that other pious marx cretin.
reality is that it's a disastrous gap in your high priest's argument which is why you're all so desperate to avoid the question. in just don't personally understand why anyone can dedicate themselves to a religion with a such colossal gap right at the heart of it.
marx never detailed a credible exit route because there isn’t one - and lenin pathed that through a vanguard police state. dictatorship is the logical endpoint, and you know it. so go ahead: find me the plan. we both know you won’t.
Brilliant! I hope you have a book written or are in tbe process. Your articles are well put together and they are something that I would pass to anyone to get a better understanding of how we got to where we are today.
"But it's probably less likely that central banks later figured out how to implement Marx's system, and more likely that Marx was developing theoretical frameworks on behalf of central banking interests from the beginning."
You'd do well to stay clear of this kind of speculation. There is no evidence to suggest Marx was working for central bankers.
it aligns too well. if this was a coincidence, you wouldn't get a perfect mapping. the fact that all 10 align so well, and the fact that both marx and engels were heavily occupied with turning everything into numbers immediately after the bank charter act is bit of a 'coincidence'.
the 'no evidence' part i couldn't really care less about. pattern match is what i do, and have done since minute one. i've matched plenty of patterns over the past few years which were leaps of faith, and most came in.
besides, you'd do well to stay clear of making claims about 'no evidence' given how heavily abused those words were during the scamdemic.
It's quite stunning to see someone like yourself produce such an excellent array of various articles yet get something of this magnitude so profoundly wrong.
You aren't just a little bit off base here your analysis here is so far removed from reality that it defies explanation as to how you can be so jumbled and propagandized on this topic.
Face it you know less than zero about classical Marxism, have scarcely read Marx' original works and certainly haven't studied them in depth.
"But what if I told you that Marxism — when filtered through a capitalist lens — describes almost exactly the world we live in today?"
That's about the gist of your piece here which resides in an upside world.
It's really quite insane.
BTW "democracy" was never intended to empower the people it was an invention of plutocrats and a step backwards from the gens.
And another BTW- private property and personal property are two extremely different things.
everything aligns spectacularly, and i even tested it with ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Claude. all of them recognised it instantly.
is this provocative, sure, but the alignment is neigh-on perfect.]
Marx was a natual born liar, who used inversion at practically every turn. i cannot believe anyone is stupid enough to believe a man who fundamentally wrote as much material as he, yet comprehensively failed to describe how the dictatorship of the proletariat would realistically wither away. i've had this discussion so many times, and I'm yet to hear the credible explanation - because it does not exist.
incidentally, a problem Lenin spotted which is why he instituted the Vanguard police state. please explain how the dictatorship of the proletariat will wither away in a credible fashion without the use of vague, unrealistic fairytales.
Relying on technocratic filters to provide "insight" on Marx as you write some gibberish about technocracy aligning with Marx. C'mon man that's Mad Hatter land. Throw all the ChatGPT/AI BS away and read the material- it's obvious you haven't.
But sure, all the institutions of the capitalist structures are Marxist and Bill Gates is a commie.
hey, you "forgot" to respond to the issue of Marx "forgetting" to detail the exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead doing the hurr AI template response.
incidentally, it's bit of a stupid reply, because in doing so you imply that NOT running something through AI is an improvement relative to running it through AI
either way, that doesnt matter.
explain why Marx didn't outline an exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Where Marx fails miserably is his solutions. The Marx/Engels idea, that an uneducated working class could somehow, through a "spontaneous order of proletariats', in a revolutionary army against capitalism, rise up into a complex system of government owned means of production, is lunacy. It will not happen.
his theories are complete garbage. how the hell can anyone achieve liberty by abolishing property? that makes everyone expressly dependent upon the state.
of course, Marx being Marx attempts to clumsily dodge this obvious flaw by fabricating the term 'personal property' as some halfway house which is just as terribly defined.
the guy was a swindler, a liar, and a crook. his best friend - Engels - owned the means of production which were to be granted to the workers. it's non-stop contradictions when you look at the finer print.
Absolutely. Marx only published book 1 in his lifetime. Within a year the Austranian economic scholars had proven his labour theory of value as nonsense with marginal utulility being the real determiner of value. being a journalist, knew how to spin a yarn. Interestingly Keynes, another absolute fraud, continued with Marx fantasy with his absurd hypothesis of demand side economics that fails catastrophically every time its imposed. The were both statist and state agents, both degenerate arrogant slobs that never had a real job.
Marx remaining works were published posthumously and of course he never had to defend them. Instead we have ambiguous 'interpretations' and any criticism met with 'you dont understand' BS.
i find marx in particular off-putting, not just because his own life stood in sharp contrast to the values he professed, and he treated people poorly - easily visible through him by and large never respectfully arguing a case, he always heads straight for pathetic insults and bullying tactics
happy to hear you call out keynes, whose most infamous work - the general theory - in essence was published after the RIIA had already moved the monetary policy framework into position.
oh you haven't yet realised that you're really only parading about the fact that you cannot even answer the most elementary question relating to marx - while desperately attempting to shift the goalpost elsewhere?
explain Marx's exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat
you'll refuse, of course - yet in spite of me calling you out for the use of the word 'sophistry', you have the nerve to continue.
i do not waste time debating the religious, and you are one. well, either that, or you're here because you're paid to lie.
explain Marx's exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat or my next action will be to block you for wasting my time.
actually, fuck it, i've wasted enough of my time on you already.
it's patently obvious you'll do absolutely everything, apart from answering the question. whether you're bought and paid for or a moron Marx devout - i frankly could not care less.
you've wasted enough of my time, and had enough chances to respond.
Please allow me to insist that in the Fourth Wave - Karl Marx has become obsolete:
The US economy, (like an Atlas), is carrying a $37trillion federal debt on it's shoulders. While conversely, (because of AI) - Wall Street economists project a cost-of-labor savings for corporations of $1trillion by 2030. That is $1trillion in lost wages for the American working class and the US economy.
For those who are knowledgeable in the study of political economy, the "labor theory of value" comes to mind. The first economists to recognize that all national income is derived by human capital, were the Physiocrats of France at the "Age of Enlightenment". Adam Smith and David Ricardo followed in studying the "labor theory of value". And Karl Marx in mid-19th Century brought forth his observations and concept of labor immersion, particularly as articulated in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
However, the AI revolution is the Fourth Wave. And in the Fourth Wave the creation of new wealth within the national income, will be laborless. Value will be added by non-human means. It is a completely new economic order and no one in academia or government can see it coming.
he's definitely not obsolute, but rather, shifted into every aspect through input-output analysis and explicit quantificaiton of every figure, every resource, every action
Wake up and smell the coffee, the Fourth Wave is here. Before the end of President Donald Trump's second administration; while operating under the economic policies of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a real 10%/10% stagflation will occur. Ten percent real inflation and ten percent real unemployment.
The US economy, (like an Atlas), is carrying a $37trillion federal debt on it's shoulders. While conversely, (because of AI) - Wall Street economists project a cost-of-labor savings for corporations of $1trillion by 2030. That is $1trillion in lost wages for the American working class and the US economy.
For those who are knowledgeable in the study of political economy, the "labor theory of value" comes to mind. The first economists to recognize that all national income is derived by human capital, were the Physiocrats of France at the "Age of Enlightenment". Adam Smith and David Ricardo followed in studying the "labor theory of value". And Karl Marx in mid-19th Century brought forth his observations and concept of labor immersion, particularly as articulated in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
However, the emerging AI revolution is the Fourth Wave. And in the Fourth Wave the creation of new wealth within the national income, will be laborless. Value will be added by non-human means. The Fourth Wave renders Smith, Ricardo and Marx obsolete. It is a completely new economic order and no one in academia, government and capital can see it coming.
wait, what, you actively support Marx's Labour Theory of Value? the one which, in essence, reduces all of human input in terms of production to explicitly a singular number - which is what we now expressly see around us through indicators, metrics and so forth?
esc, exactly how did you extrapolate from my comments, that I support Marx's Labour Theory of Value? This is my assessment on Karl Marx and the “Labor Theory of Value”
One of the central tenets of Marxism is the labor theory of value, which states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labor time required to produce it. In this framework, labor itself becomes a commodity—something that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. Marx argues that, under capitalism, workers are forced to sell their labor power to capitalists, who exploit them by paying wages that are less than the full value their labor produces. This difference—or “surplus value”—is appropriated by the capitalist as profit. However, this analogy between labor and commodities reveals deep flaws when examined critically.
The idea that labor is a commodity has been criticized in the works of many prominent economists, both from the Austrian school of economics and from others. Friedrich Hayek, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), offers a broader critique of socialist economic planning, which includes the Marxist treatment of labor as a commodity. Hayek’s critique of Marxism is that it leads to the centralization of power, where the state controls labor and other aspects of the economy. He argues that treating labor as a controlled commodity within a planned economy undermines individual freedom and leads to a form of “serfdom.”
According to Friedrich Hayek, economic freedom, including the freedom to choose one’s work and negotiate wages, is essential for political freedom. His critique implies that the Marxist approach to labor, which treats it as a commodity to be controlled by the state, is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to individual liberty.
Karl Polanyi, in his influential work The Great Transformation (1944), introduces the concept of “fictitious commodities” to describe things like labor, land, and money that are treated as commodities in a market economy but are not truly commodities in the traditional sense. Polanyi argues that labor is a “fictitious commodity” because it is not produced for sale but is an inherent aspect of human life. Polanyi criticizes the commodification of labor because it reduces human beings to mere inputs in the production process, ignoring their social and moral significance. He argues that treating labor as a commodity is unnatural and harmful, leading to social disintegration and exploitation.
Ludwig von Mises, in his work Human Action (1949), critiques the Marxist concept of labor as a commodity from the perspective of the Austrian school of economics. Mises argues that labor cannot be treated as a commodity in the same way as goods and services because it is intrinsically linked to human choice and action. Mises contends that labor is an expression of individual preferences and values, which cannot be reduced to a market price alone. He criticizes Marxist economics for failing to recognize the subjective nature of value in labor, arguing that labor is not a homogeneous commodity and varies in quality and value depending on the individual and the context. This critique challenges the Marxist framework by asserting that labor cannot be commodified in the same way as physical goods. Mises’s emphasis on individual choice and the subjective theory of value suggests that Marx’s treatment of labor as a commodity is an oversimplification that ignores the complexity of human behavior and economic relationships.
i'm far more interested in marx's interest in turning everything into metrics. by destilling everything into numbers he philosophically prepared the ground for a future technocracy.
no, that is the point. marx turned everything into metrics. you claim marx is gone. you fundamentally do not understand the contemporary system, because marx is everywhere.
well, morals and dogma is essentially the bible of th scottish rite, and that stops at 33. and the definition is right there, and expressly aligned with clearinghouse logic - the 'balancer', the 'expert panel' call it what you will.
but the level 33 does not call the shots at the end of the day.
i think beyond goes to the theosophical society. the 7 rays fits. and the first of their rays is the executor. there's no similar in freemasonry level 33
it further describes a hierarchical structure with clearinghouse function, guided through science. it's a perfect fit.
well, i cant tell you that, but i can tell you that marx created a framework which essentially converted every aspect of humanity into a metric just a few years after the 1844 bank charter act which granted the BoE a currency monopoly.
so to me, whoever it is, s/he is down from the central banks anyway.
that might well be, but who grants orders to level 33?
unless you seek to end up in a situation where level 33s compete unbeknownst to one another, they need to be coordinated. pike doesn't suggest who ultimately calls the shots. that's the issue with morals and dogma.
without structure above you could easily end up with freemasonry splitting. ergo, there must be layers above level 33, and they cannot be at the very top.
they're not at the top as far as i can tell. in my take, the theosophical society was probably marketed at the elite, while the freemasons are the 'muscle' below, so to speak.
but it all comes down to the unit of account.
check out morals and dogma which defines the level 33 as the balancer of the equlibrium
Well I’m flabbergasted.
Many years ago , when I was young ….hahaha I read and emphatically believe in the démocratic workers control !
Yes it appeared to be the solution for humanity.
As I read your enlightening article my heart fell into my shoes
Yes we blindly applied the theories , un aware of how Marx was funded n how he fitted into the global technicalogical , algorithmic global future that is implemented in today’s world
Rereading your extracts blew my mind
What a way to start the week
Thank you 🙏🏻
oh sitting going through the retarded religion over here - it logically aligns with technocracy.
https://substack.com/@escapekey/note/c-153580961?utm_source=activity_item
Religion has an interesting 'development' as the sense of self in life and cosmos.
The rational superstructure of modernity used word and mind magick to repackage our religious inheritance into complex financial instruments of narratives/myths set by the 'light of Reason' and crowned by industrial and technological reach as a socially progressive (unstoppable) 'evolution'.
That an idol of reason and progress operates a collective tyranny is masked by the extension or development of the Model - to which life is sacrificed as virtue or necessity under an increasing stark reversal of the natural order.
Post-modern has to run as post-truth and thus as an insane operating system for the management of its own rationally induced hallucinations (outputs of partial and conflicted predicates).
It thus runs a form of demonic possession or parasitism arising from our own dispossession or sleep set in evasions of true responsibility.
For my part I use the 'script' playing out as the world to identify 'back doors or correspondences in my own thought and identity of habit.
I thus seek to recognise patterns operating in the open, that actually serve as repackaged guilt or control set in social masking order.
The point of discerning true from false is the embrace of one by the release of the other. That the 'mind' of ego or control is always seeking to reframe life as its domain of judgement is where joy in life holds open a truly connected capacity for discernment. I cant set values to fixed quantities, but can arrive at a sense of just or proportionate exchange of acknowledgment or right of being.
In the book I mentioned below - it used the 'lost science of money' in regard to living principles that cannot be systemised to dead algorithms set by insider cliques. There is a place for cancelling or even nullification of debts from a higher moral order than contractual entanglements running indentured service or slavery.
But moral order has been substituted for by 'moral accusation and judgements' seeking for (and being used by) corruptions of power.
Restoring true presence as a basis for living from is denied by a past invoked to stamp its boot on the face of a present that repeats into a 'future' forever denied.
All words are degraded by misuse or abuse, but mercy and forgiveness have an original beneath the counterfeit. You do not have to deserve life in your own or anyone else's terms, to be or exist as a living creative being, but by your own terms and conditions you can disallow or block the creative for whatever reasons or preferences you accept by using.
A locked down mindset cannot really think. It only runs as a tool for a 'thinking' that absolves it from creative participation in life - so to run in a bubble of convenience. No blame here - but invitation to notice thoughts, feelings and reactions beneath the 'screen' of a visually dominated system of coded meanings.
(Even though some of what we uncover is associated with deep pain in life).
Standards and systems of control are being noticed:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-173514534
Hello, my first comment here (from France and a French person ^^), and congratulations on the work !
On the subject, I read a few things about Marx. In particular :
The curious thing about Marx was that in many ways he was as much a product of the emancipation of the Jews of south-western Germany as the Rothschilds themselves. He admits as much, indeed, in a little-read footnote to volume III of Capital, appended to a rather good section on the nature of financial panics:
Immediately after the February Revolution, when commodities and securities were extremely depreciated and utterly unsaleable, a Swiss merchant in Liverpool, Mr B. Zwilchenbart – who told this to my father – cashed all his belongings, travelled with cash in hand to Paris and sought out Rothschild, offering to participate in a joint enterprise with him. Rothschild looked at him fixedly, rushed towards him, grabbed him by his shoulders and asked: “Avez-vous de l’argent sur vous?” – “Oui, M. Le baron.” – “Alors vous êtes mon homme!”
Much as he wanted to hate capitalism, Marx could never quite conceal his enthusiasm for the bourse– to the extent that he himself briefly became a ‘day-trader’ in 1864.
https://www.rothschildarchive.org/materials/ar2001_cash_nexus.pdf
marx is chock full of contradictions. it completely absurd that some preach at his alter, refusing to acknowledge the massive flaws in his character.
And yes, but who can trust a communist hipster who isn't even tattooed? ^^
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.
Whoever wrote it, without committing a name to the script, left out the fact that Marx and Engels, especially the former, went FAR beyond the Manifesto in subsequent years, wrote in the introduction to the 25th anniversary re-issue that a lot of it was now either wrong or outdated, but they did not feel it appropriate to revise a historical document to align it with the (then) present. You wouldn’t know that unless you’d seen the re-issue and wouldn’t understand without reading Capital and even The Grundrisse and The Civil War in France that Marx came to see the need to abolish banks, money and the state, at the start of a revolutionary transformation (“Critique of the Gotha Program”).
"David Ricardo helped establish central banking currency monopoly with the Bank Charter Act of 1844. Four years later, Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto, explicitly citing Ricardo's labour theory of value as foundational to his analysis. Marx was building on theoretical frameworks that were already connected to central banking interests.”
Utter nonsense. Marx took pains to explain how his theory of value was a fundamental break with the theory of value developed by Adam Smith and later updated by David Ricardo.
your mistake is that you place too much faith in what they say, as opposed to what they do. and marx was a notorious liar who inverted the intent of just about everything (in addition to being an awful human being in general).
those are just words. and funny you should mention the grundrisse because of all his writings that align the best, the fragment on machines iis pretty much perfect. but, hey, marx himself said that was totally because 'x' so hey, no conflict of interest in using marx to dispel with that, right?
sure, marx and engels later admitted parts of the manifesto were outdated — but they never retracted its central planks, did they now?
as for ricardo, the important part is structural - both Smith/Ricardo and Marx reduce value to a singular measurable unit, in marx's case it became 'socially necessary labor time' but it's still a metric.
"sure, marx and engels later admitted parts of the manifesto were outdated — but they never retracted its central planks, did they now?"
FALSE! When one calls for the abolition of money, what sense does it make to create a ... bank?
" in marx's case it became 'socially necessary labor time' but it's still a metric."
Only in YOUR mind. Socially necessary labor time cannot be measured with any accuracy even were the world linked to a light speed processing super computer. It is an abstract quantity which can never be actually known. And Marx's idea was to get rid of it, eliminate it as the basis of social production.
You are confusing the ideas of Marx with those of the Bolsheviks, as well as the Second International, for whom "socialism" morphed into state capitalism (explicitly stated so by Lenin). The Bolsheviks just wanted to do it via a coup, rather than elections.
For Marx vs Smith/Ricardo, see
https://dailybattle.pairsite.com/2010/hudson_tarpley_disinformation.shtml
For more general analysis of capitalism, see these two.
https://dailybattle.pairsite.com/2010/american_left_doesnt_get_capitalism.shtml
https://dailybattle.pairsite.com/2012/occupy_target_destroy_ruling_money_fetish.shtml
so where are the planks recalled again?
and marx did call for it as a 'transitional measure' (like so many other, where he 'forgets' to describe how they 'wither away'..
'centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly'
so, in other words, we're back to the 'withering away of the dictatorship' which none of you pious marx believers appear to be able to explain.
compunded lies, in other words
>SNLT can’t be measured … Marx’s idea was to get rid of it.
yet another of those bullshit "hay guys trust me, on the other side of communism" lines
so - again - where did marx credibly explain how the dictatorship of the proletariat would wither away? we can start with you replying credibly to these three, but in reality, it all comes back to the same question which marx 'forgot' to reply to
In Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875, Marx called for the abolition of money. You can look that up. "Centralization of Credit" is from the Manifesto, 1847. . You are trying to confuse people, or else are confused yourself.
> In Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875, Marx called for the abolition of money
yeah, and where does that lead, given that he recommended early stage input output analysis through producer-consumer pairs in das kapital? i tell you exactly where it leads - to a situation where you have to surveil absolutely every material, and not just money.
as for the elimination of money itself - no, he didn't actually suggest that wholesale. instead, people would receive 'vouchers' for 'social labour value' - ie, he eliminated currency by introducing a different kind of currency. marx's writings are chock full of these non-solutions, because all of it is one giant inversion.
also, im not trying to "confuse people" but since you posted that preposterous nonsense
where did marx explain, realistically, how the dictatorship would 'wither away'?
it's a key issue in your religion. because he didn't. your ideology has a giant gap, right at the centre of it - because he wasn't actually deeply concerned with ever leaving the state of dictatorship.
"as for the elimination of money itself - no, he didn't actually suggest that wholesale. instead, people would receive 'vouchers' for 'social labour value' - ie, he eliminated currency by introducing a different kind of currency. marx's writings are chock full of these non-solutions, because all of it is one giant inversion."
Vouchers in his plan were NOT "currency," since they could not be circulated.
"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor."
"he recommended early stage input output analysis through producer-consumer pairs in das kapital? i"
Analysis of CAPITALISM, not of a different society. You are being deceptive again, or unclear.
"where did marx explain, realistically, how the dictatorship would 'wither away'?"
He called for the destruction of the state in The Civil War in France, and went even further in his Ethnographic Notebooks, which were not published as a book till the 1970s, since they are just notes/
https://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2012_02.dir/pdfXSzpVPe6x8.pdf
"your ideology has a giant gap, right at the centre of it - because he wasn't actually deeply concerned with ever leaving the state of dictatorship."
I am not ideological. I eschew the very term "Marxist" because it implies turning Marx's analysis into an ideology. Marx himself rejected "Marxism" when he proclaimed "I am not a Marxist." though he did so in French. I prefer "Marxian" or "historical materialist," a la E.P. Thompson.
His term "dictatorship" became meaningless by the 1870s because the vast majority of the population had become the working class. It simply meant that the vast majority would prevent a tiny minority from exercising continued tyrannical control over society, as with the 0.1% today over the 99.9%.
...key insights escapekey...i must look deeper into this, if i understand correctly u imply that the Manifesto, etc is a coup in terms of subversive and deceptive long term strategy...considering Marx's parental rabbinic background, on his father's side, do u think the bankers predominantly of Zionist persuasion and tendencies?.. i realize that u may have indicated elsewhere... 🙏➕🙏...
This is a really sharp and detailed text – and most importantly you managed to connect Marx’s points with what is happening in code and monetary protocols today.
The point you are making is this:
Marx was not purely a “workers’ revolutionary”, but an intellectual tool for legitimising centralisation.
The Manifesto can be read as a blueprint for the consolidation of power – only the proletariat was a rhetorical cover.
Technocracy today implements exactly the same mechanisms, but instead of the open political dictatorship of the proletariat we have “neutral” algorithms, ESG metrics, CBDCs and platform protocols.
Central banking is the basic pillar: if you control the money, you don’t need factories or armies.
The revolution has already happened – but quietly, through legislation, protocols, clearing systems and code.
If you wanted to cut it down even further, it could be summarized in three sentences:
👉 The Manifesto was not a guide to freedom, but to centralization.
👉 Algorithms and monetary policy today implement exactly the centralization that Marx wrote about.
👉 Workers were never meant to be the goal - only the means.
"The Communist Manifesto presents itself as a precise plan for centralized control, because that is precisely what it is. ... The great reversal is that this plan was not implemented by the proletariat, but by the emerging technocratic and financial elite."
J. B. E. Goldstein calls this "oligarchic collectivism". It is not a book of fiction (although it appears in G. Orwell's "1984"), and it reveals to us some aspects and methods of political power, in the continuity of Machiavelli's The Prince.
> https://archive.org/details/TheorieEtPratiqueDuCollectivismeOligarchique/
Systems theory runs a rationalising quantification of life as predictively defined, modelled and thus pre-emptively applied (as an internalised control system).
Structure based identity operates an invested stake in the substitution of control for a qualitative discernment of life - which can be seen as an open system or an order of orders that operates as a whole - that is of synchronicities emergent from an otherwise discarded or mapped out Infinity.
But the signature of the underlying definitions remains discernible within the projections of the 'social or collective order' as visibility of otherwise hidden assumptive identity/reality.
I recently read The Lost Science Of Money ~ The Mythology Of Money : The Story Of Power by Stephen A. Zarlenga - in which Marxist thought was presented as a 'controlled opposition' for the protection of the controls developing through banking as the usurp of money power.
The author presents the case that just money is a creature of law which must embody moral integrality as support for life as transparent to public accountability.
The use of anyone's ideas is distinct from the author's original intention - but the nature of Money Power as a stealth means to incentivise outcomes, works the filters and rules of weaponisation and marketisation to which truth or integral value or meaning is sacrificed for 'gain of function' framed to an insider elitism.
I read once that the Fabian movement permitted a wide range of freedom of thought and expression subject only to non-negotiable conviction that Life is a closed system of depleting resource necessitating war for survival - ergo Life = War. By all and every means.
Thus all that seems not to be war provides a means to mask and manipulate those who seek in 'illusions' of value or meaning that must be sacrificed or discarded (to qualify for inclusion and access to insider privilege).
While illusions of love or peace are not hard to find, the existence of counterfeits is actually evidence for true currency of exchange. A qualitative discernment is lost to a war-mind - for it can only seek as guilt, fear, and threat dictate. Thus control runs as a substitution for what love actually is and does - as a unifying and aligning integrality.
Models for predictive or pre-emptive utility may serve in limited ranges of application.
The mass migration (dissociative displacement) to systemic capture under biotech modelling thus demands systemic limiting of conscious participation to a tooled permission-slip of compliance as means to maintain access to resources for life support.
Arguing with an abuser will persist in the experience of abuse and further train the abuser in the means to sustain the appearance of a relationship (where there is only the intent to use or substitute relationship by war (possession and control).
Leaving or dropping the false identification is the gift of a true recognition and thus relational honesty or integrality. But the payoffs or believed gains (or mitigations of pains) associated with the false operates as the inner gaslighting of a 'comfort zone' established within abuse or dys-function. Such inner-conflict of split allegiance can play out in externalised projections of war between polarised good and evil - when at heart the conflict is undone by a decision to be whole. No matter how much we think we want our substitutes for connection, security or power in peace, they all share the singular attribute of failing to unfold true fulfilment, while providing the 'hit' of a sense of life, already 'snatched' from our grasp. Ritual re-enactments run hollow, increasing the tension for stimulus enslaves to tension release cycles.
Machined thinking tools the mind that made it to 'see' a world it 'gains' at cost of whole-souled participation.
The Creative is not as idealised forms set 'special' but as uncovered integrality of being.
A 'zero trust' order offers a robotic ego management system on the basis of masking manipulation as the social prerogative. I also see this as the masking, and mapping of guilt and sacrifice via incentivised narratives as the underpinning of systemic sin, sacrifice and death. Guilt OS runs the substitution for God - in the sense of creative, qualitative, wholeness of living the moment and the day at hand. Grievance and vengeance operate the 'countermeasures' to any real process of addressing and healing conflicts - that have become drivers of 'economy' as vested 'identities' framed in fake 'solutions'.
Idols don't fall because they are attacked, but because they represent misplaced faith and generate compounding fear of pain of loss under false dictates. That were accepted or used as a means to escape or 'scape consequence away from a sense of self 'control'.
The proof is in the pattern, alright. Chat with AI about some hypothesis and see what results suit your theory, or bias. But it remains speculative, drawn from juxtaposition of disparate sources into elaborate, esoteric typology of ideas and sheer gobbledegook referred to history absent its material reality (as Marx might have noted). Here's where the technocratic inversion 'lies', echoed in your ad hominem below that Marx was "a notorious liar who inverted the intent of just about everything (in addition to being an awful human being in general)." Maybe you should back off from the abyss, for your own sake.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
-Orwell
hah, you accuse me of “gobbledegook” while leaning on orwell to make your point - ie a pattern-recognition exercise.
the fact that technocratic power inverts reality through abstractions doesn’t make abstractions irrelevant. how you came up with that ludicrous leap is beyond me.
besides, another "you should totally not do x" comment. maybe back off posting meta-handwaving instead of dodging the issue.
alternatively, explain where exactly Marx laid out a workable exit plan from the dictatorship of the proletariat. or, you know, claim it's 'sophistry' to even ask for that like that other pious marx cretin.
reality is that it's a disastrous gap in your high priest's argument which is why you're all so desperate to avoid the question. in just don't personally understand why anyone can dedicate themselves to a religion with a such colossal gap right at the heart of it.
marx never detailed a credible exit route because there isn’t one - and lenin pathed that through a vanguard police state. dictatorship is the logical endpoint, and you know it. so go ahead: find me the plan. we both know you won’t.
Brilliant! I hope you have a book written or are in tbe process. Your articles are well put together and they are something that I would pass to anyone to get a better understanding of how we got to where we are today.
"But it's probably less likely that central banks later figured out how to implement Marx's system, and more likely that Marx was developing theoretical frameworks on behalf of central banking interests from the beginning."
You'd do well to stay clear of this kind of speculation. There is no evidence to suggest Marx was working for central bankers.
it aligns too well. if this was a coincidence, you wouldn't get a perfect mapping. the fact that all 10 align so well, and the fact that both marx and engels were heavily occupied with turning everything into numbers immediately after the bank charter act is bit of a 'coincidence'.
the 'no evidence' part i couldn't really care less about. pattern match is what i do, and have done since minute one. i've matched plenty of patterns over the past few years which were leaps of faith, and most came in.
besides, you'd do well to stay clear of making claims about 'no evidence' given how heavily abused those words were during the scamdemic.
It's quite stunning to see someone like yourself produce such an excellent array of various articles yet get something of this magnitude so profoundly wrong.
You aren't just a little bit off base here your analysis here is so far removed from reality that it defies explanation as to how you can be so jumbled and propagandized on this topic.
Face it you know less than zero about classical Marxism, have scarcely read Marx' original works and certainly haven't studied them in depth.
"But what if I told you that Marxism — when filtered through a capitalist lens — describes almost exactly the world we live in today?"
That's about the gist of your piece here which resides in an upside world.
It's really quite insane.
BTW "democracy" was never intended to empower the people it was an invention of plutocrats and a step backwards from the gens.
And another BTW- private property and personal property are two extremely different things.
"you're wrong because i say so"
everything aligns spectacularly, and i even tested it with ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Claude. all of them recognised it instantly.
is this provocative, sure, but the alignment is neigh-on perfect.]
Marx was a natual born liar, who used inversion at practically every turn. i cannot believe anyone is stupid enough to believe a man who fundamentally wrote as much material as he, yet comprehensively failed to describe how the dictatorship of the proletariat would realistically wither away. i've had this discussion so many times, and I'm yet to hear the credible explanation - because it does not exist.
incidentally, a problem Lenin spotted which is why he instituted the Vanguard police state. please explain how the dictatorship of the proletariat will wither away in a credible fashion without the use of vague, unrealistic fairytales.
then source it to Marx
"ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Claude"
Oh, brother.
Relying on technocratic filters to provide "insight" on Marx as you write some gibberish about technocracy aligning with Marx. C'mon man that's Mad Hatter land. Throw all the ChatGPT/AI BS away and read the material- it's obvious you haven't.
But sure, all the institutions of the capitalist structures are Marxist and Bill Gates is a commie.
hey, you "forgot" to respond to the issue of Marx "forgetting" to detail the exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead doing the hurr AI template response.
incidentally, it's bit of a stupid reply, because in doing so you imply that NOT running something through AI is an improvement relative to running it through AI
either way, that doesnt matter.
explain why Marx didn't outline an exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat.
if you can.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/169laBDJj5EIy9DLrjMd2YG4fBxIgZ4-tv-wuPaURTWQ/edit?usp=sharing
I have studied political economy for over fifty years. Where Marx shines is his theories on labor: https://docs.google.com/document/d/182PyiT828c82kot1M1oFtXkdH2jde0Yia9mv-uSWM3s/edit?usp=sharing
Where Marx fails miserably is his solutions. The Marx/Engels idea, that an uneducated working class could somehow, through a "spontaneous order of proletariats', in a revolutionary army against capitalism, rise up into a complex system of government owned means of production, is lunacy. It will not happen.
his theories are complete garbage. how the hell can anyone achieve liberty by abolishing property? that makes everyone expressly dependent upon the state.
of course, Marx being Marx attempts to clumsily dodge this obvious flaw by fabricating the term 'personal property' as some halfway house which is just as terribly defined.
the guy was a swindler, a liar, and a crook. his best friend - Engels - owned the means of production which were to be granted to the workers. it's non-stop contradictions when you look at the finer print.
the communist manifesto is an elaborate scam.
Absolutely. Marx only published book 1 in his lifetime. Within a year the Austranian economic scholars had proven his labour theory of value as nonsense with marginal utulility being the real determiner of value. being a journalist, knew how to spin a yarn. Interestingly Keynes, another absolute fraud, continued with Marx fantasy with his absurd hypothesis of demand side economics that fails catastrophically every time its imposed. The were both statist and state agents, both degenerate arrogant slobs that never had a real job.
Marx remaining works were published posthumously and of course he never had to defend them. Instead we have ambiguous 'interpretations' and any criticism met with 'you dont understand' BS.
i find marx in particular off-putting, not just because his own life stood in sharp contrast to the values he professed, and he treated people poorly - easily visible through him by and large never respectfully arguing a case, he always heads straight for pathetic insults and bullying tactics
happy to hear you call out keynes, whose most infamous work - the general theory - in essence was published after the RIIA had already moved the monetary policy framework into position.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/a-general-theory?utm_source=publication-search
Can you cite how many of Marx' works you have read and analysed?
What were the first forms of private property other than personal property?
oh you haven't yet realised that you're really only parading about the fact that you cannot even answer the most elementary question relating to marx - while desperately attempting to shift the goalpost elsewhere?
explain Marx's exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat
you'll refuse, of course - yet in spite of me calling you out for the use of the word 'sophistry', you have the nerve to continue.
i do not waste time debating the religious, and you are one. well, either that, or you're here because you're paid to lie.
explain Marx's exit ramp from the dictatorship of the proletariat or my next action will be to block you for wasting my time.
actually, fuck it, i've wasted enough of my time on you already.
it's patently obvious you'll do absolutely everything, apart from answering the question. whether you're bought and paid for or a moron Marx devout - i frankly could not care less.
you've wasted enough of my time, and had enough chances to respond.
blocked.
Please allow me to insist that in the Fourth Wave - Karl Marx has become obsolete:
The US economy, (like an Atlas), is carrying a $37trillion federal debt on it's shoulders. While conversely, (because of AI) - Wall Street economists project a cost-of-labor savings for corporations of $1trillion by 2030. That is $1trillion in lost wages for the American working class and the US economy.
For those who are knowledgeable in the study of political economy, the "labor theory of value" comes to mind. The first economists to recognize that all national income is derived by human capital, were the Physiocrats of France at the "Age of Enlightenment". Adam Smith and David Ricardo followed in studying the "labor theory of value". And Karl Marx in mid-19th Century brought forth his observations and concept of labor immersion, particularly as articulated in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
However, the AI revolution is the Fourth Wave. And in the Fourth Wave the creation of new wealth within the national income, will be laborless. Value will be added by non-human means. It is a completely new economic order and no one in academia or government can see it coming.
he's definitely not obsolute, but rather, shifted into every aspect through input-output analysis and explicit quantificaiton of every figure, every resource, every action
I could not disagree more - Marx and the academia who support his theories are dinosaurs in the new economic order of the Fourth Wave.
Please allow me to posit: The 2008-2009 TARP (Great Recession) under both GWB and Barack Hussein Obama oversaw the permanent demise of the neo-classical economic order. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AL5PH6GBAJrs1SyqZgLP3sYwudi5ghrUAeg6JPSm6kU/edit?usp=sharing
And therefore the topic of 2025-2026 should be the imminent collapse of central-bank fiat currencies and labor-based value-added systems:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/169laBDJj5EIy9DLrjMd2YG4fBxIgZ4-tv-wuPaURTWQ/edit?usp=sharing
Wake up and smell the coffee, the Fourth Wave is here. Before the end of President Donald Trump's second administration; while operating under the economic policies of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a real 10%/10% stagflation will occur. Ten percent real inflation and ten percent real unemployment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/169laBDJj5EIy9DLrjMd2YG4fBxIgZ4-tv-wuPaURTWQ/edit?usp=sharing
The US economy, (like an Atlas), is carrying a $37trillion federal debt on it's shoulders. While conversely, (because of AI) - Wall Street economists project a cost-of-labor savings for corporations of $1trillion by 2030. That is $1trillion in lost wages for the American working class and the US economy.
For those who are knowledgeable in the study of political economy, the "labor theory of value" comes to mind. The first economists to recognize that all national income is derived by human capital, were the Physiocrats of France at the "Age of Enlightenment". Adam Smith and David Ricardo followed in studying the "labor theory of value". And Karl Marx in mid-19th Century brought forth his observations and concept of labor immersion, particularly as articulated in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
However, the emerging AI revolution is the Fourth Wave. And in the Fourth Wave the creation of new wealth within the national income, will be laborless. Value will be added by non-human means. The Fourth Wave renders Smith, Ricardo and Marx obsolete. It is a completely new economic order and no one in academia, government and capital can see it coming.
wait, what, you actively support Marx's Labour Theory of Value? the one which, in essence, reduces all of human input in terms of production to explicitly a singular number - which is what we now expressly see around us through indicators, metrics and so forth?
esc, exactly how did you extrapolate from my comments, that I support Marx's Labour Theory of Value? This is my assessment on Karl Marx and the “Labor Theory of Value”
One of the central tenets of Marxism is the labor theory of value, which states that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially-necessary labor time required to produce it. In this framework, labor itself becomes a commodity—something that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. Marx argues that, under capitalism, workers are forced to sell their labor power to capitalists, who exploit them by paying wages that are less than the full value their labor produces. This difference—or “surplus value”—is appropriated by the capitalist as profit. However, this analogy between labor and commodities reveals deep flaws when examined critically.
The idea that labor is a commodity has been criticized in the works of many prominent economists, both from the Austrian school of economics and from others. Friedrich Hayek, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), offers a broader critique of socialist economic planning, which includes the Marxist treatment of labor as a commodity. Hayek’s critique of Marxism is that it leads to the centralization of power, where the state controls labor and other aspects of the economy. He argues that treating labor as a controlled commodity within a planned economy undermines individual freedom and leads to a form of “serfdom.”
According to Friedrich Hayek, economic freedom, including the freedom to choose one’s work and negotiate wages, is essential for political freedom. His critique implies that the Marxist approach to labor, which treats it as a commodity to be controlled by the state, is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to individual liberty.
Karl Polanyi, in his influential work The Great Transformation (1944), introduces the concept of “fictitious commodities” to describe things like labor, land, and money that are treated as commodities in a market economy but are not truly commodities in the traditional sense. Polanyi argues that labor is a “fictitious commodity” because it is not produced for sale but is an inherent aspect of human life. Polanyi criticizes the commodification of labor because it reduces human beings to mere inputs in the production process, ignoring their social and moral significance. He argues that treating labor as a commodity is unnatural and harmful, leading to social disintegration and exploitation.
Ludwig von Mises, in his work Human Action (1949), critiques the Marxist concept of labor as a commodity from the perspective of the Austrian school of economics. Mises argues that labor cannot be treated as a commodity in the same way as goods and services because it is intrinsically linked to human choice and action. Mises contends that labor is an expression of individual preferences and values, which cannot be reduced to a market price alone. He criticizes Marxist economics for failing to recognize the subjective nature of value in labor, arguing that labor is not a homogeneous commodity and varies in quality and value depending on the individual and the context. This critique challenges the Marxist framework by asserting that labor cannot be commodified in the same way as physical goods. Mises’s emphasis on individual choice and the subjective theory of value suggests that Marx’s treatment of labor as a commodity is an oversimplification that ignores the complexity of human behavior and economic relationships.
i'm far more interested in marx's interest in turning everything into metrics. by destilling everything into numbers he philosophically prepared the ground for a future technocracy.
Stay on point, you are drifting; The question should be, is there an "entrepreneur's remedy" to what is coming in the Fourth Wave.
Think Richard Cantillon and his "Essay". https://www.amazon.com/Essay-Economic-Theory-Richard-Cantillon-ebook/dp/B00507HK10
no, that is the point. marx turned everything into metrics. you claim marx is gone. you fundamentally do not understand the contemporary system, because marx is everywhere.
you're the one dodging. is the spot soft?
How did you possibly conclude from my comments - with you referencing Adolf Hitler? I object to you insulting comment.
Can you cite how many of Marx' works you have read?
you now ctrl-c ctrl-v your repies? lol.
i responded elsewhere, i assume you'll ignore that chance to explain Marx's exit ramp from the dictatorshop of the proletariat as well?
well, morals and dogma is essentially the bible of th scottish rite, and that stops at 33. and the definition is right there, and expressly aligned with clearinghouse logic - the 'balancer', the 'expert panel' call it what you will.
but the level 33 does not call the shots at the end of the day.
i think beyond goes to the theosophical society. the 7 rays fits. and the first of their rays is the executor. there's no similar in freemasonry level 33
it further describes a hierarchical structure with clearinghouse function, guided through science. it's a perfect fit.
well, i cant tell you that, but i can tell you that marx created a framework which essentially converted every aspect of humanity into a metric just a few years after the 1844 bank charter act which granted the BoE a currency monopoly.
so to me, whoever it is, s/he is down from the central banks anyway.
well that might be the preferred strategy of other people, but i don't spent 30 months analysing a structure in depth to go after low-hanging fruit.
i sourced everything impeccably from minute one for this very reason.
that might well be, but who grants orders to level 33?
unless you seek to end up in a situation where level 33s compete unbeknownst to one another, they need to be coordinated. pike doesn't suggest who ultimately calls the shots. that's the issue with morals and dogma.
without structure above you could easily end up with freemasonry splitting. ergo, there must be layers above level 33, and they cannot be at the very top.
they're not at the top as far as i can tell. in my take, the theosophical society was probably marketed at the elite, while the freemasons are the 'muscle' below, so to speak.
but it all comes down to the unit of account.
check out morals and dogma which defines the level 33 as the balancer of the equlibrium
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/doctrine-of-the-mean?utm_source=publication-search
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-invisible-college?utm_source=publication-search