@Alien, maybe his wealth came from being born in a rich family.

So are you suggesting that no one should ever be born in a rich family because life ain't fair?

So what are rich families supposed to do? Stop procreating?

Life ain't fair. Get used to it.

[sorry CAMPO. i couldn't resist. posting on gokm is like being a heroin junkie. it takes some time to extricate oneself, and then the withdrawal symptoms kick in]

Fooled again! Got withdrawl symptoms just after 30 minutes. I love it when they cry wolf.

@Magnifico: Am used to the idea that life ain't fair, it's just that I don't see what's so great about the unfairness. I think we can do better.
The unfairness has to do with concentrated wealth and power (rich families) and relative poverty and powerlessness (poor families), which both exist because of the other. Inheritance of wealth does not exactly justify the capitalist's control over those who labor and, through their labor, create wealth.

ha ha. fooled ya, CAMPO!

poverty is a necessary evil that needs to exist.

because poverty is the karmic consequence of bad actions / bad decisions / mistakes / laziness / evil deeds from this lifetime and previous lifetimes.

@Magnifico: a kind of reasoning that has supported the caste system in India for a very long time. I'm not sure what 'evil needs to exist' means - sounds like some Christians or Zoroastrians might support this (Satan is necessary?), maybe not, better ask them - on the surface, at least, it doesn't impress me.

I'm not too familiar with the caste system in India, apart from the basics. So I won't comment.

Here's a Chinese proverb for you. Where do you think such a proverb comes from?

富不过三代 (fu bu guo san dai) Wealth does not pass three generations

@I dunno, but I know the saying and I'd guess it's very old - perhaps from The Dream of the Red Chamber? Anyway, it's a sort of shorthand for what was seen as the typical cycle of the rise & fall of families in China - can be extended to cover the cycle of the rise & fall of ruling dynasties as well.
But what's the point?

"where did"his" wealth come from?" Geez, I don't know. "Capitalists" are not a monolithic group that all steal from workers or inherit wealth stolen workers. What difference does it make?

I guess you need a villain to support and explain Socialism/Marxism/Communism because without the evil Capitalist behaving heartlessly and robbing poor people the story doesn't work. What better way than to use the plight of poor working people, as in the sweat shops of 19th century England, to develop a faceless, nameless class of folks that prey on the poor. The class labeled "Capitalists" are obviously guilty as their money is witness to their crime.

The creators and leaders of totalitarian systems need to create villains to justify all or part of the coercive measures they employ to obtain and maintain control. Hitler had the Jews, Stalin had Cossacks, Mao had right roaders, and Pol Pot had people that wear eye glasses. Identification of enemies must be clear. Race, nationality, religion, ethnicity, having wealth, or owning a pair of eye glasses is easy and works. These enemies allow totalitarian leaders to mobilize the masses, whip up nationalism, race or ethnic hatred, and demonstrate brutally effective force to suppress the enemy. This demonstration, this killing of a few, or many, chickens keeps the masses in line.

Marx was a genius. But he had difficulty with money. Engels supported Marx financially for many years. Freddy was the son of a Capitalist employed by his father. So the support enjoyed by Marx was the fruit of capitalist exploitation. I guess this was okay as it was redistribution of wealth.

On the other hand, one could conclude the 'Communist Manifesto' is invalid and corrupt as it was a product of capitalism due to Engels participation. If you find all Capitalists guilty simply because they have wealth and means, then you might tar Engels with the brush of enemy of the poor. But his 1844 book was a clear indictment of the state of Capitalism in England at the time.

As a key element in Capitalism is freedom, the coercive element is minimal. Capitalism requires free, or nearly free, markets, free choice, free flow of information and a legal system which avoids political bias. A characteristic of Socialism/Marxism/Communism, from Marx to Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Jiang Zemin, is the expressed need to control information and public opinion. This control is essential to contain and mold public opinion in vilifying Capitalists and any other groups perceived as a threat to Socialism/Marxism/Communism.

Does it matter Engels took money from his Capitalist father and shared it with Marx?

@1. Marx had nothing to do with the control of public opinion and information.
2. No, it doesn't matter that Engels took money from his capitalist father to support Marx.
3. "Socialism/Marxism/Communism" is a mixed bag of categories.
4. "Totalitarianism" is a bad idea wherever you find it.

My high school history teacher came with that as well: Marx was a vagabond, lazy, etc etc.

However, Marx chose to dedicate his time to intelectual pursuits in a similar way that tribal societies members dedicate most of their time to leisure/cultural bonding activities.

There isless stress in tribal life and food can be easily shared by dedicating a minimum time for hunting or gathering. Shelter isn't a problem because huts can also be easily built and shared, contrary to our modern residences where years of work are required to maintain and support the modern abodes. "Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity". - Karl Heinrich Marx

A vagabond, he was trough the capitalistic modern view perhaps, but nonetheless a genius, his analysis of how our economical relationships work was pinpoint accurate however he failed with his presenting solution.