hashem:Know this much: Karl Marx was ignorant beyond measurement. The most you ever need to know is how to obliterate his painfully ridiculous claims. Looks like you found the right book.
Well I don't think he is an idiot. He is very shrewed and cunningly devised whole contradictory theories that people actually fell for.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
You know, it's pretty amazing how none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant? None of you are even able to state what Marx's relation to classical economics is. "Marx's claims" What about Marx's claims? He came from a school of classical economics, was incredibly well read and therefore was able to meticulously and painfully dissect capitalism as if it were an organism. He did, in fact, see at as an organism. And to say that Marxists don't exist anymore? You are are sooo obviously speaking and thinking in a realm that excludes (and probably detests) Third World and feminist intellectual movements. Postmodernism intellectual thought is also heavily influenced my Marx, but you're probably not familiar with any interdisciplanary academics or theorists. I implore you: get out of the narrow confines of your specialized discipline and meet the rest of the world.
I recommend the Postmodernist Marxist ethnography Made In China of the dagongmei (female peasant transient worker class in China)
A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (Marxist anthropologist geographer)
And attempt to look at Marx not as something you need to "blow out of the water" but within the framework Hegelian/Marxist thought progressions that frame materialist history as progression. We can indeed do better than capitalism. Also, look at the works of Marx as being progressive as well: all great philosophers develop their thought, and Capital is his magnum opus. Push yourselves to think.
claclaclaudius: You know, it's pretty amazing how none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant?
You know, it's pretty amazing how none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant?
I'm reading a pdf file I have of Das Kapital, so who's calling who ignorant now?
Also, it's pretty amazing when Marxist don't even read it. I came across one who never even heard of it.
I think you'll find most people here are very well read in Marxism. It's why we're posting here, after all.
It's hard to read, but is a necessary task if it's going to be debated. Kinda like what they teach us in school. Yet for some reason minimal and obvious standards such as that do not tend to apply in "debates" about Marx in mainstream academic culture. The Cold War, anyone?
The (sometimes self-proclaimed) opposite is evident judging from the posts in this thread.
claclaclaudius:It's hard to read, but is a necessary task if it's going to be debated. Kinda like what they teach us in school. Yet for some reason minimal and obvious standards such as that do not tend to apply in "debates" about Marx in mainstream academic culture. The Cold War, anyone?
Luckily, or for the worse, this isn't mainstream academic culture.
Kewl. We welcome you to start a separate thread with a specific point proposed and then we can debate
Laughing Man: When do I get my flower? That was a fun debate. I like hibiscus by the way.
When do I get my flower? That was a fun debate. I like hibiscus by the way.
Haha, were you the one who put "lacking in" under the organisation field or was that one of the mods after you were banned from revleft? I found that hilarious.
Eric:Hegel is without a doubt the most difficult philosopher to understand.
I don't find Hegel that difficult to understand, at least compared to other German philosophers. Heidegger on the other hand, is nearly impossible for me to understand.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: Laughing Man: When do I get my flower? That was a fun debate. I like hibiscus by the way. Haha, were you the one who put "lacking in" under the organisation field or was that one of the mods after you were banned from revleft? I found that hilarious.
Under laminustacitus's name over there it says "Misean Restricted". What the heck is that, their gulag classification?
Hard Rain: Under laminustacitus's name over there it says "Misean Restricted". What the heck is that, their gulag classification?
Eventually Austrian theory will be banned from the intellectual Marxist circles/cults.
claclaclaudius: You know, it's pretty amazing how none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant? None of you are even able to state what Marx's relation to classical economics is. "Marx's claims" What about Marx's claims?
You know, it's pretty amazing how none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant? None of you are even able to state what Marx's relation to classical economics is. "Marx's claims" What about Marx's claims?
However, what is not amazing is that a Marxist would make those generalizations although they are logical fallacies.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
We can indeed do better than capitalism.
Yes, it's called free market anarchism. Embrace it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
claclaclaudius:none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant?
Implying we're wrong by virtue of not having read his book........Implying there aren't Austrian critiques of Marx.Implying Marx wasn't ignorant.
claclaclaudius:What about Marx's claims?
He was wrong, a lot. That is all.
claclaclaudius:get out of the narrow confines of your specialized discipline and meet the rest of the world.
Implying "the rest of the world" are Marxists with valuable contributions.Sub-implying that Marxists have valuable contributions.
The thing about the mixed economy is, that a lot of what Marx wanted has already occurred (outside of the soviet union), but not in the violent way he proposed, nor is it incredibly beneficial.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Great list guys. I heard Ralph Raico refer to the alexander gray book today.It sounded awesome then but when someone say it has left anarchists in it ,that just sold it for me.I really need to wrap my head around this stuff and the manifesto.I have read some of it,it's soo dull.I don't know why leftists enjoy it so much.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Scott F:I heard Ralph Raico refer to the alexander gray book today.It sounded awesome then but when someone say it has left anarchists in it ,that just sold it for me
I think I said it before somewhere in here but maybe it was another topic but both Ralph Raico and Murray Rothbard think that Gray's Socialist Tradition is one of the best books written on the subject. I've become the publisher for that book If you have any questions about Marx, just ask. I'm working my way through the first volume of Main Currents of Marxism which is an excellent book so far. Very technical but extremely informative.
Libertyandlife: The thing about the mixed economy is, that a lot of what Marx wanted has already occurred (outside of the soviet union), but not in the violent way he proposed, nor is it incredibly beneficial.
Well actually what is happening is what LaSalle proposed being a social democrat. After the Industrial revolution, Marxists started realizing that Marx's theories of the immiseration of the working class wasn't coming about. A good lecture explaining this is David Gordon's 'Rise of Social Democracy'
Laughing Man, have you read Marx & Satan by Richard Wurmbrand? It seems interesting and I plan on checking it out (I believe Rothbard cited it somewhere, I think it was in Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist), I was just wondering if you ever read it and if you thought it was any good.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
I do believe along with Hayek that Augusto Pinochet's treatment of Marxism is the best answer to this mental disease known as Marxist fascism. Sometimes these communists infuriate me so much I want become a Mussolini-ite. Sorry. /rant
Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. - Ludwig von Mises
Beefheart:Laughing Man, have you read Marx & Satan by Richard Wurmbrand? It seems interesting and I plan on checking it out (I believe Rothbard cited it somewhere, I think it was in Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist), I was just wondering if you ever read it and if you thought it was any good.
No but the title does sound interesting.
I just finished the first volume of Main Currents of Marxism yesterday and wow my brain hurts. It is completely packed with thick detail and explanation concerning not only Marx and Engels but at least a dozen different philosophers of various schools. It is extremely impressive and very technical. A great work. I'm about to move onto the second volume after I finish The Social Contract.
Andrew Cain: I just finished the first volume of Main Currents of Marxism yesterday and wow my brain hurts. It is completely packed with thick detail and explanation concerning not only Marx and Engels but at least a dozen different philosophers of various schools. It is extremely impressive and very technical. A great work. I'm about to move onto the second volume after I finish The Social Contract.
Book review, please.
Daniel Muffinburg:Book review, please.
It is perhaps the most technical look at Marxism that I have ever read. Even more technical then the works by Rothbard and Mises. It starts from discussing the origins of dialectical thought then onto the young Marx. It explains all of his works and the context in which they were presented. He also explains other socialists before Marx. There are a lot of chapters on how the Hegelian dialectic works and the dehumanization of capitalism. The last chapters are on historical materialism, dialectal materialism, how Engels thinks knowledge is acquired and the differences between Marx and Engels. It was only 420 pages but it was just so detailed that it took me awhile to get through it. It is definitely not a book for people who are just starting to understand Marxism.
Yeah, cuz this is the real shit. I'd strongly discourage anyone from reading or trying to make sense of Marx, as he was the cause of untold misery for millions of people. Reading Marx is the equivalent of reading Mein Kampf and trying to "understand" the same statist bullshit. Its evil and makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
MarketFundamentalist: Yeah, cuz this is the real shit. I'd strongly discourage anyone from reading or trying to make sense of Marx, as he was the cause of untold misery for millions of people. Reading Marx is the equivalent of reading Mein Kampf and trying to "understand" the same statist bullshit. Its evil and makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
You can't be a critic of Marx without having read his material.
Let's have a book burning and get rid of anything that could taint our fragile little minds.
The list will include:
1. Das Kapital
2. General Theory
3. Mein Kampf
Once those books are burned, we will never have to worry about their ideas again.
What is 'the real shit'? Marxist theory makes sense in a way. I mean it is not illogical. Daniel is right though, you can't criticize something you are unfamiliar with. In fact today, many supposed Marxists actually don't read Marx's works or read just the Communist Manifesto. They say ridiculous things like how they are Marxists but are for reform in government. They don't know Marxist doctrine, they invent it.
Bert: Let's have a book burning and get rid of anything that could taint our fragile little minds. The list will include: 1. Das Kapital 2. General Theory 3. Mein Kampf Once those books are burned, we will never have to worry about their ideas again.
Book burnings are the actions of simpletons too self-conscious to read an opposing opinion and too moronic to refute it.
Bert: MarketFundamentalist: Yeah, cuz this is the real shit. I'd strongly discourage anyone from reading or trying to make sense of Marx, as he was the cause of untold misery for millions of people. Reading Marx is the equivalent of reading Mein Kampf and trying to "understand" the same statist bullshit. Its evil and makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Let's have a book burning and get rid of anything that could taint our fragile little minds. The list will include: 1. Das Kapital 2. General Theory 3. Mein Kampf Once those books are burned, we will never have to worry about their ideas again.
Is that sarcastic or what? Ideas don't burn.
And can anybody say: thought-police.
Wake up!
Andrew Cain:They don't know Marxist doctrine, they invent it.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:no doubt the key to the longevity of 'Marxism'.
Absolutely. I would say his ambiguity concerning the future and the fact that many of his 'humanist' pieces only came out at the beginning of the 20th century, had they not then I think Bohm-Bawerk would of been the nail in Marx's coffin.
There's nothing wrong with book burning... if you own them.
Daniel,
I was simply responding to the vein of this particular post and the ambivalent insults and charges of ignorance when nothing was being cited. Anyway, I saw the post that you just left about reading about Marx transcending phases from philosopher to political economist, and then your response saying that you must understand or be knowledgeable about Marx in order to argue against him. So thanks for reaffirming my original point and undermining your own about Marxists and their logical fallacies.
Don't forget that the Humanist Marxian philosophy led to Gramsci who heavily influenced Foucault, Fanon and Said. Marx is no one-trick pony. He was the catalyst of a a revolutionary geneaology of thought in Western and postcolonial philosophy.
The best of luck to all. See you on the outside of the academic mainstream.
claclaclaudius: Anyway, I saw the post that you just left about reading about Marx transcending phases from philosopher to political economist, and then your response saying that you must understand or be knowledgeable about Marx in order to argue against him. So thanks for reaffirming my original point and undermining your own about Marxists and their logical fallacies.
Anyway, I saw the post that you just left about reading about Marx transcending phases from philosopher to political economist, and then your response saying that you must understand or be knowledgeable about Marx in order to argue against him. So thanks for reaffirming my original point and undermining your own about Marxists and their logical fallacies.
You said that none of us had read Capital, what does that have to do with the book Andrew Cain read?
...
I've read your post about 15 times already, and have tried to make sense of it in the context of this thread. I do not understand how I reaffirmed your original point and undermined mine. Please explain.
I have a question for you: Are you a Marxist, and if so, have you all Marxist material?
Great to know.
claclaclaudius:Don't forget that the Humanist Marxian philosophy led to Gramsci who heavily influenced Foucault, Fanon and Said. Marx is no one-trick pony. He was the catalyst of a a revolutionary geneaology of thought in Western and postcolonial philosoph
Well its not like there is 'Humanist Marxian philosophy' and 'Economic Marxian philosophy' there just is 'Marxian philosophy.' How much of it is actually conceived by Marx is debatable. Much of what his philosophy contains is from other theorists. He didn't discover class conflict, alienation is obviously Hegelian in nature, his economic theories are largely Ricardian. Really what Marx did was connect all of these theories and tweak them to a degree.
nirgrahamUK: Andrew Cain:They don't know Marxist doctrine, they invent it. no doubt the key to the longevity of 'Marxism'.
"Marx, in fact, has been hailed by the hermeneuticians as one of the grandfathers of the movement. In 1985, for example, at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association in Las Vegas, virtually every paper offered in political theory was a hermeneutical one. A paradigmatic title would be "Political Life as a Text: Hermeneutics and Interpretation in Marx, Heidegger, Gadamer, and Foucault." (Substitute freely such names as Ricoeur and Derrida, with an occasional bow to Habermas.)
I do not believe it an accident that Karl Marx is considered one of the great hermeneuticians. This century has seen a series of devastating setbacks to Marxism, to its pretensions to "scientific truth," and to its theoretical propositions as well as to its empirical assertions and predictions. If Marxism has been riddled both in theory and in practice, then what can Marxian cultists fall back on? It seems to me that hermeneutics fits very well into an era that we might, following a Marxian gambit about capitalism, call "late Marxism" or marxism-in-decline. Marxism is not true and is not science, but so what? The hermeneuticians tell us that nothing is objectively true, and therefore that all views and propositions are subjective, relative to the whims and feelings of each individual."
So why should Marxian yearnings not be equally as valid as anyone else's? By the way of hermeneutics, these yearnings cannot be subject to refutation. And since there is no objective reality, and since reality is created by every man's subjective interpretations, then all social problems reduce to personal and nonrational tastes. If, then, hermeneutical Marxists find capitalism ugly and unlovely, and they find socialism beautiful, why should they not attempt to put their personal esthetic preferences into action? If they feel that socialism is beautiful, what can stop them, especially since there are no laws of economics or truths of political philosophy to place obstacles in their path?" - MNR, The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics
hey. i just got done reading that paper today Conza. good paper.
Rothbard seems to have always got there first......
wilderness: Bert: MarketFundamentalist: Yeah, cuz this is the real shit. I'd strongly discourage anyone from reading or trying to make sense of Marx, as he was the cause of untold misery for millions of people. Reading Marx is the equivalent of reading Mein Kampf and trying to "understand" the same statist bullshit. Its evil and makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Let's have a book burning and get rid of anything that could taint our fragile little minds. The list will include: 1. Das Kapital 2. General Theory 3. Mein Kampf Once those books are burned, we will never have to worry about their ideas again. Is that sarcastic or what? Ideas don't burn. And can anybody say: thought-police. Wake up!
If you can't catch my sarcasm I don't know what to tell ya.