Andrew Cain:What is 'the real shit'?
Marxist theory makes sense in a way.
you can't criticize something you are unfamiliar with.
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
MarketFundamentalist: Andrew Cain:What is 'the real shit'? Anarchism.Marxist theory makes sense in a way.It makes sense as much as Mein Kampf does. Ask the millions killed by Marxism how it makes sense to them.you can't criticize something you are unfamiliar with. That is true, but we are all familiar with Marx's record: millions dead all in the name of a utopia.
If you tend to prove that you are right you must also prove why your opponents are wrong. Simply going on that millions are dead due to his theory doesn't hold up if you can't explain why.
If Hazlitt said Keynes is wrong without giving a critique on General Theory, it wouldn't go far.
Bert:If Hazlitt said Keynes is wrong without giving a critique on General Theory, it wouldn't go far.
MarketFundamentalist: Bert:If Hazlitt said Keynes is wrong without giving a critique on General Theory, it wouldn't go far. Keynes has not killed millions like Marx.
Who's the greater risk? Keynesian theory has killed millions of economic opportunities, and it seems to be a greater academic concern than Marxist theory.
I'm getting off track, that's an entire discussion in itself. Regardless, if you refuse to read something on the premise that the theory has killed millions of people and that you are afraid that it might change your own train of thought then maybe you aren't so grounded in the theory you support if you feel that reading one or many works by Marx would change your mind (maybe you are mentally weak and easily persuaded). There's no real reason not to read someone else's work. It's no different than a communist saying someone shouldn't read Human Action or some other capitalist literature because it may change their mind.
wilderness: Is that sarcastic or what? Ideas don't burn. And can anybody say: thought-police. Wake up!
Is that sarcastic or what? Ideas don't burn.
And can anybody say: thought-police.
Wake up!
Bert:If you can't catch my sarcasm I don't know what to tell ya.
I apologize for the exclaimed remark. It would have been more efficient and sympathetic of me to stick with the question and why I questioned what you said "ideas don't burn" and "thought-police". But glad to see you were being sarcastic. I can't readily tell over the internet, and by the kind of posts you present here I probably could have been more understanding since you've never given any reason for me to think you were being serious. You're posts are usually enjoyable and knowledgeable about liberty issues. I misunderstood what you said.
have a good night.
wilderness: But glad to see you were being sarcastic. I can't readily tell over the internet, and by the kind of posts you present here I probably could have been more understanding since you've never given any reason for me to think you were being serious.
But glad to see you were being sarcastic. I can't readily tell over the internet, and by the kind of posts you present here I probably could have been more understanding since you've never given any reason for me to think you were being serious.
Sometimes it's hard to pick up sarcasm on the internet, but I regularly talk to people online who have a dark sense of humor. It's like reading Stephen Wright jokes, sometimes it doesn't make sense to people who aren't used to it (or have no clue what they are talking about).
wilderness: You're posts are usually enjoyable and knowledgeable about liberty issues.
You're posts are usually enjoyable and knowledgeable about liberty issues.
That's good to know. I didn't know if I posted enough to make myself memorable.
I have heard that a book by Paul Craig Roberts called Alienation and the Soviet Economy is a good look at how the concept of alienation drove the Soviet experiment
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Giant_Joe:I keep trying from time to time and it comes off as psycho-babble. :( Try reading Hegal. You'll want to commit an atrocity. The 1844 Manuscripts aren't too bad. I think Capital is probably the worst.
Giant_Joe:I keep trying from time to time and it comes off as psycho-babble. :(
So I got around to reading some stuff trying to explain Hegel. Just awful. It seems that some contemporary philosophers are easy to understand and read, while those who base their work on Hegel's dialectic (or derivative philosophical thinking) are impossible to make decent sense of. I'll stick with using logic and the senses to try to understand the world. The dialectic is just insanity.
This has led me to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
I'll get to his stuff eventually.
"A materials list"
Nice pun.
In defense of Market Fundementalist though, I think that one can discover cause from effect -if not then empiricism is a lost cause. Indeed it may, and I'm going out on a limb here, even unmask the essence of problems too though I concede that this is the more roundabout way of doing things instead of pure apriorism.
so when one says that millions of dead people shows the stuff marxism is made of, there is something true in that.
fakename: so when one says that millions of dead people shows the stuff marxism is made of, there is something true in that.
And when one looks at the same time how millions of people worship Che Gueverra and Nelson Mandela I guess that says something about what these people are made of, too.