He is held up on a pedestal by many but was he really a great man in terms of his moral character? Did he truly have the best interests of humanity at heart, or was he embittered and arrogant as some claim?

Marx, born into a wealthy family and had every good fortune as a young man yet lived in poverty most of his adult life. Three of his children died young, perhaps due to under-nourishment? I’ve also read that two others committed suicide. How would such a life leave a man of intellect?

Engels was a wealthy industrialist (textile industry) with ties to many wealthy people including bankers. Engels couldn’t have written what he did and been taken seriously – he NEEDED a front man.

Karl Marx

At the least might it be reasonable to believe that, like most men, Marx was ego-driven and sought fame and even some degree of fortune through the use of his talents and skills? In any case, in that day, one needed wealth to avoid the trap of manual labor and to do what he wanted.

Engels, and I believe it is well documented, gave Marx money in addition to contributing much writing and thought to Marx’s work. A dog does not bite the hand that feeds it.

Not to equate Marx to a dog (and depending on what side of Marx one takes, I don’t want to insult dogs either), but merely to point out that we are all animals and we are all servants ultimately to our basic needs, including the need to be respected by others. Engels gave Marx that respect and Marx would have been inclined to give back *something* in return. Humans do this all the time, it is in the nature of humanity to be co-operative, to give and take to build and defend.

What of Marx’ self image. Did he believe himself superior to the common man? Did he have an axe to grind? Was he in truth superior morally and ethically and thus immune from prejudice and hate? I think the answers are well documented in his own writings.

There is plenty of tripe his promoters, apologists and detractors have put forward, as to be expected, as his life’s work delves into near-to all aspects of political power. That being the case I would suggest going to the source and judge him as a man, and only a man. Consider the many tragedies of his life and wonder what effect this had upon him.  What effect does such have upon men today?

The communist manifesto.

How much was even written by Marx, I don’t know, but he put his name to it and one of the core planks of the manifesto is the creation of a central bank. Did Marx understand money and that central banking had been, was still, used for monopolizing economic power and is a key tool by oligarchs to:

1. control and direct peoples lives secretly behind the scenes
2. manipulate for private gain via interest rates (those who set them know in advance where and what to invest in), and
3. rob outright via the printing of money which causes the money to be worth less and less – a hidden form of taxation.

I think he did understand money and banking. Many people had a solid understanding of such in that era (unlike now), especially the intellectual classes (again, unlike now). Could Marx have really been so ignorant?

If Marx was truly a peoples man, then wouldn’t he have been an anarchist? He wasn’t of course, he supported the heavy hand of government. He supported the notion that government knew best and thereby, he was a social eugenicist. Any and all government social policy & law affects how people make decisions with regard to family planning and thus is innately eugenic.

The socialists and communists often rail against the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ amongst humans. But what they don’t say is what they offer in it’s place – it is eugenics. So far as I know there is no middle ground here, one either supports natural selection, the selection by nature through the open and free market of relations between men that drives evolution, or one supports the idea that man should be able, to some degree, to choose for all, who is fit and who is not.

I believe Marx had a tragic life. I think he was angry at the world for what he believed had been taken from him. Wealth and the life of privilege that he had in his youth were gone and he blamed and hated many governments and individuals for his condition. As such, I was very cautious to accept his work and investigated it and the alternatives with caution. I hope others do the same as what he conceived goes to the root of social organisation and, if wrong, would devastate society and lead to the loss of many lives – as it has, in my opinion, already.