Karl Marx had an amazing ability to put the foundation on top of the house. And he got the expected result ... the collapse of said house. Unfortunately, it was always some society in a future distant from his own lifespan, which got to endure those results.
Marx had the mind of the modern-day world improver. And his record of ineptitude matches any of that ilk. Was Marx the worst? I don't know. He only took the sickle in hand to open the path that others have followed.
What a terrible thing that the sick mind of Marx didn't go to waste before he found a way to write his ideas to paper. And all because of Karl, Groucho and his four brothers had that name to live down. Thankfully, they were more skilled than Karl.
“In the last analysis, the essential thing is the life of the individual. This alone makes history, here alone do the great transformations take place, and the whole future, the whole history of the world, ultimately springs as a gigantic summation from this hidden source in individuals.”
Wow, what a powerful quote! I must confess I haven't read any of C.G. Jung's work... but a lot of folk I greatly respect have recommended him. Thanks for the reminder to add him to the ever-growing to-read list.
I've backpacked and visited local families in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, and read authors in Brazil, and Uruguay. The "Bonaerenses" wouldn't consider themselves to be at the end of the world, rather enjoying their own great culture.
Thanks for your Substack articles. They are always interesting and challenging for political elites and super wealthy in North America and Europe.
My quick reaction, which seems to be an initial position I often take. Is that it’s not mutually exclusive; it could be a combination of both rare individuals and opportune points in time for them to shine. An exception seems to be Jesus Christ in that He is arguably the person with the greatest impact ever, and His timeline on Earth wasn’t particularly unusual or broad in perspective. I admit I am bias on this view also.
Again, I do appreciate your researching this, analyzing it, and gracefully explored it publicly for consideration.
If you’ve read “Foundation” by Robert Heinlein you can see where Heinlein got some of his concepts. Also Heinlein was a loads better read than the folk you mention.
My $0.02 would be that history is largely driven by individuals.
That is individuals whose concepts and impact are magnified when they correlate with others.
Napoleon would have also agreed that redeemable money is the bedrock of civilisation as opposed to paper fiat currency. He said "While I live I will never resort to irredeemable paper,"
Karl Marx had an amazing ability to put the foundation on top of the house. And he got the expected result ... the collapse of said house. Unfortunately, it was always some society in a future distant from his own lifespan, which got to endure those results.
Marx had the mind of the modern-day world improver. And his record of ineptitude matches any of that ilk. Was Marx the worst? I don't know. He only took the sickle in hand to open the path that others have followed.
What a terrible thing that the sick mind of Marx didn't go to waste before he found a way to write his ideas to paper. And all because of Karl, Groucho and his four brothers had that name to live down. Thankfully, they were more skilled than Karl.
In My view , I would tend to side with Mises.
C. G. Jung certainly agreed with Mises.
“In the last analysis, the essential thing is the life of the individual. This alone makes history, here alone do the great transformations take place, and the whole future, the whole history of the world, ultimately springs as a gigantic summation from this hidden source in individuals.”
Wow, what a powerful quote! I must confess I haven't read any of C.G. Jung's work... but a lot of folk I greatly respect have recommended him. Thanks for the reminder to add him to the ever-growing to-read list.
"Society doesn’t think, Mises boldly insisted. Only individuals think... and therefore, only individuals act"
Sadly however. crowds and societies can and do often act irrationally, as do those indoctrinated by the Marxist ideology.
Ludwig von Mises' Austrian School of Economics while making perfect rational sense plays second fiddle to that of John Maynard Keynes.
Why, one may ask, is this so? While a smart rational thinker acts, for a society to follow one needs a Napoleon on a horse.
Fantastic comment, Andrew. Will unpack in a future Note. Cheers!
Hello Joel,
I've backpacked and visited local families in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, and read authors in Brazil, and Uruguay. The "Bonaerenses" wouldn't consider themselves to be at the end of the world, rather enjoying their own great culture.
Thanks for your Substack articles. They are always interesting and challenging for political elites and super wealthy in North America and Europe.
Thought provoking! Thank-you.
My quick reaction, which seems to be an initial position I often take. Is that it’s not mutually exclusive; it could be a combination of both rare individuals and opportune points in time for them to shine. An exception seems to be Jesus Christ in that He is arguably the person with the greatest impact ever, and His timeline on Earth wasn’t particularly unusual or broad in perspective. I admit I am bias on this view also.
Again, I do appreciate your researching this, analyzing it, and gracefully explored it publicly for consideration.
Yes, I think I tend to agree… there are more theories of history to explore, too, in upcoming Notes. Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
Exceptionally well said.
If you’ve read “Foundation” by Robert Heinlein you can see where Heinlein got some of his concepts. Also Heinlein was a loads better read than the folk you mention.
My $0.02 would be that history is largely driven by individuals.
That is individuals whose concepts and impact are magnified when they correlate with others.
Joel, Individuals by themselves can be dangerous, but together with other like minds and ambitions they can accomplish much, positive.
And the madness of crowds can accomplish the opposite.
E Pluribus, Unum!
MARX and a truly diabolical dialectic Amigo.
[not a fan of VAR 🚩🥅 ⚽]
Napoleon would have also agreed that redeemable money is the bedrock of civilisation as opposed to paper fiat currency. He said "While I live I will never resort to irredeemable paper,"