I've heard many truthers attempt to tear up the popular mechanics report, none have done so. Being widely disputed by truthers does not make something rubbish. The thermite claims are all debunked...
Grimmer, Thermite and the WTC (911 Myths)Rethinking Thermite (Debunking 911)Sol-gel, thermite and the WTC (911 Myths)Traces of Thermate at the WTC (911 myths)
I am a trained Architect / Computer Analyst who only cares about engineering reality not the opinion of online hacks. Most truthers are clueless about engineering and make embarrassing claims not based on reality. The first time I heard many of their claims I literally LOL. They were claiming pressure releases from the building falling to being caused by explosives and other nonsensical claims.
The legitimate science supporting skepticism of man-made global warming catastrophy has abosolutely nothing to do with the online hacks promoting 911 truther fantasies.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Laughing Man: AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Not entirely. Marxist class awareness does not conflict with Austrian Economics. However, it is not entirely relavent. So the revolution of the proletariat and their subsequent communalizing of the means of production does not conflict with lassie-faire capitalism? Interesting. AnarchomarxistLibertaria:A synthesis of Marxism and Anarchism or Marxism and Austrian Economics does not require that every node of every subset of sociology, philosophy, praxeology, etc of each system be identical. Rather, a synthesis involves the combining of fruitful nodes to create a new system. Ah, so you bastardize the three systems, take what you like without maintaining consistency and fail to see the contradiction in the matter. One would think that in creating a new system you would not take on the names of the three systems which you neglected to fully embrace.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Not entirely. Marxist class awareness does not conflict with Austrian Economics. However, it is not entirely relavent.
So the revolution of the proletariat and their subsequent communalizing of the means of production does not conflict with lassie-faire capitalism? Interesting.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:A synthesis of Marxism and Anarchism or Marxism and Austrian Economics does not require that every node of every subset of sociology, philosophy, praxeology, etc of each system be identical. Rather, a synthesis involves the combining of fruitful nodes to create a new system.
Ah, so you bastardize the three systems, take what you like without maintaining consistency and fail to see the contradiction in the matter. One would think that in creating a new system you would not take on the names of the three systems which you neglected to fully embrace.
The communalizing of the factors of production is does not conflict with the free market mechanism of Austrian economics (capitalism is not well-defined, so unless you want to make your own defintion clear, I suggest you avoid using it) if coercion is not involved and communalization occurs voluntarily without a state apparatus. A stateless market can certainly include communalized production.
If you want to call an explicit synthesis a "bastardization" because of your nominal ideological loyalties, feel free to do so. I call myself that only to give some impression of my general understandings and sympathies. Labels are inherently insufficient anyway. I hold loyally to no formal label.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Personally attacking your fellow discussant is always the best way to engage in useful conversation. Always.
An individual is sometimes rationally ignorant of his/her ideology. Perhaps they are new, perhaps they fail to fully enact their logic. However what we have here is purposeful ignorance.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Your loose definitions of Marxism are not relevant. I am not a 'Marxist.' I am a Post Austrian Anarcho-Marxist.
You are not a Marxist...you just have Marxist in your label...
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:ustrian economics does not necessarily propogate the morality of any system.
Austrian economics doesn't propogate lassie-faire capitalism because of utilitiarianism.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Communal ownership of the means of production exists today within nominally capitalist systems.
That would be true if we were actually in a capitalist economy.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria: There is no reason why non-coerced communal ownership of the factors of production is incompatible with either Austrian economics or anarchism.
If you want non-coerced communal property then dropped the Marxist title.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student: Laughing Man:Rothbard talked about these characters and I was always curious to see who they were. I knew of the nihilist Lachmannians but I have meet my first 'Austrian-Marxist' Mutualists. Kevin Carson is the fella with the notions about an Austro-Marxist synthesis. Unfortunately, their obsession with exploitation and anti-capitalism makes it really difficult to reconcile their ideas with anarcho-capitalism.
Laughing Man:Rothbard talked about these characters and I was always curious to see who they were. I knew of the nihilist Lachmannians but I have meet my first 'Austrian-Marxist'
Mutualists. Kevin Carson is the fella with the notions about an Austro-Marxist synthesis.
Unfortunately, their obsession with exploitation and anti-capitalism makes it really difficult to reconcile their ideas with anarcho-capitalism.
Sure, though Kevin Carson is hardly the only mutualist with notions about Austro-Marxist (or Leftist-Libertarian) synthesis.
Yeah we do not care about anarcho-capitalism, as such. Anarcho-capitalism, if taken to mean the simply status quo markets minus the regulatory bodies and welfare state and military, is not desirable. Anarcho-capitalism has been criticized specifically by mutualists, anarcho-Marxists, anarch-anti capitalists, etc. There is no desire for reconciliation. Synthesis, maybe ; )
Laughing Man:An individual is sometimes rationally ignorant of his/her ideology. Perhaps they are new, perhaps they fail to fully enact their logic. However what we have here is purposeful ignorance.
You are off-topic, but I would love to talk about rational ignorance, irrational ignorance, willful ignorance, blissful ignorance.. it's a symptom of being trained in public choice theory.
Laughing Man:Austrian economics doesn't propogate lassie-faire capitalism because of utilitiarianism.
What? Are you satying that it does not propogate LFC, and it does not do so because of utilitarianism; or that it does do so, but not because of utilitarianism?
Laughing Man:That would be true if we were actually in a capitalist economy.
Define what you mean by 'capitalist economy.' I suspect we would agree.. we do not have free markets due to government intervention. Our application of that understanding of reality, however, I think would differ.
Laughing Man:If you want non-coerced communal property then dropped the Marxist title.
Why? There are plenty of just plain "Marxists" who did/do not want coercion.
Poptech:I've heard many truthers attempt to tear up the popular mechanics report, none have done so.
Goyette is not a truther. He tore up Popular Mechanics. When you listen to the interview, then get back to me.
Poptech:Grimmer, Thermite and the WTC (911 Myths)Rethinking Thermite (Debunking 911)Sol-gel, thermite and the WTC (911 Myths)Traces of Thermate at the WTC (911 myths)
Which of them has debunked Neils Harrit's research?
Poptech:I am a trained Architect / Computer Analyst who only cares about engineering reality not the opinion of online hacks.
I linked you to professional engineers and scientists, not online hacks. You're constructing a strawman.
Poptech:Most truthers are clueless about engineering and make embarrassing claims not based on reality.
I agree. Which is why I don't source them, and you shouldn't be using the lowest common denominator to make your argument.
Check out the research and the credentials of the researchers I posted, and then compare it to the credentials of your debunkers.
That is, if you want to be intellectually honest. I suspect anyone who keeps debunked links on speed dial, does not.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Anarcho-capitalism, if taken to mean the simply status quo markets minus the regulatory bodies and welfare state and military, is not desirable.
That is a strawman fallacy. Perhaps you should discover anarcho-capitalism independent of whatever anyone has told you because whatever you have been told is wrong.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Anarcho-capitalism has been criticized specifically by mutualists, anarcho-Marxists, anarch-anti capitalists, etc.
Right, probably based on the same strawman. I've often wondered if it's really ignorance, or if it's actually intentional lying aimed to discredit what is a much more simple, sincere and rational anarchism than the many other flavours.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:You are off-topic, but I would love to talk about rational ignorance, irrational ignorance, willful ignorance, blissful ignorance.. it's a symptom of being trained in public choice theory.
I was retorting to your comment about how I started my discussion.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:What? Are you satying that it does not propogate LFC, and it does not do so because of utilitarianism; or that it does do so, but not because of utilitarianism?
It propogates lassie-faire capitalism because it is the embodiment of natural rights theory which is a moralist theory. Austrians don't run around screaming 'We have to have capitalism because it will help 51% of the population!!'
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Define what you mean by 'capitalist economy.' I suspect we would agree.. we do not have free markets due to government intervention. Our application of that understanding of reality, however, I think would differ.
We have a mixed economy. It is that simple. We have a private and public sector.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Why? There are plenty of just plain "Marxists" who did/do not want coercion.
I wouldn't consider them Marxists. Just dishwater socialists who were looking to leech onto a powerful figure and impregnant the movement with their their ideas in order to achieve power or status. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a necesscity for Marxism because historical materialism is the basis for the 'future' of Marxism back in 1848. Marxism is one of those 'wonderful' ideologies that cannot sustain itself if you take one of its foundations away. Historical materialism (ie class struggle) is one of those foundations.
LM, I just wanted to say, it is a great joy for me to see a former Marxist deconstruct Marxism.
liberty student: AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Anarcho-capitalism, if taken to mean the simply status quo markets minus the regulatory bodies and welfare state and military, is not desirable. That is a strawman fallacy. Perhaps you should discover anarcho-capitalism independent of whatever anyone has told you because whatever you have been told is wrong. AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Anarcho-capitalism has been criticized specifically by mutualists, anarcho-Marxists, anarch-anti capitalists, etc. Right, probably based on the same strawman. I've often wondered if it's really ignorance, or if it's actually intentional lying aimed to discredit what is a much more simple, sincere and rational anarchism than the many other flavours.
I once described myself as an anarcho-capitalist, in point of fact. Now I forget if it was you or the other poster that attempted to accuse me of ignorance before, but its really not useful. Nobody has all knowledge of all nodes of any complex system. I am not topically omniscient. You are not topically omniscient. We work from there, human.
I do know that there are various positions taken by and understandings held by those to claim the label 'anarcho-capitalist.' I tend to agree with the vast majority of what the majority of them say. There is, however, a distinct lack among a number of them of displayed understanding of the relations of production, and specifically regarding the history of state and function of nominal free markets. It is a unrealistic understanding of the status quo that complicates their usually sound understanding of praxeology.
Maybe you should display that it IS in fact a strawman, instead of constantly throwing acussations around. Demonstrate your understanding of the forces of production. Do you accept that certain cooperations function as states? Do you have a fruitful defintion of the state?
liberty student:LM, I just wanted to say, it is a great joy for me to see a former Marxist deconstruct Marxism.
It is a joy to do so. I take great pleasure in educating 'Marxists' in their own theories. To quote that wonderful writer Sir Alexander Gray:
"But beyond this, there are those who believe in Marx without having read him--perhaps who believe in Marx just because they have not read him. It is probably a safe surmise that to-day the third volume of Capital is even less read than that single chapter which has conferred immortality on the prophet Obadiah, and when read, is read with as little comprehension. Just as, according to some and to judge from their practice, a good Christian need not read his bible, so a good Marxian does not need to read his Marx: he KNOWS it is there. Thus, for the great body of the faithful, Marx has become the inspired author of a body of Sorelian myths, which sum up, and fit in with, their general view of life, which clarify and illumine their daily strivings, which rationalize and crystallise their instincts. And these people, quite rightly, are not concerned with metaphysical refinements of a theory of value. They accept the fact of 'exploitation' which has been proven by Marx, whom the doubter can read if he can and if he so chooses--by Marx who had read so many books that the list of his references runs to pages and pages of close type. Moreover 'increasing misery' means 'increasing misery' neither more nor less; and in a world where we all feel so much less fortunate than we think we ought to be, it is comforting to be told that we are right, and to know is who is responsible for our unhappiness. That is what Marx did, and here lies the secret of his influence. To consider whether Marx was 'right' or 'wrong'; to dredge Volume I and III of Capital for inconsistencies or logical flaws, to 'refute' the Marxian system is, in the last resort, sheer waste of time; for when we consort with Marx we are no longer in the world of reason or logic."
By the way, do not think that you 'newspeaking' my name has skipped my notice, you Orwellian demon!
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Daniel: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "i was hoping for the banhammer to fall." I figured. How, er, open-minded and, er "libertarian"of you :-) How idiotic, er, idiotic of you. I didn't bother to read the meat of the thread, but how exactly does 911 tie into Austrian economics; and how does Austrian economics tie into LewRockwell.com (LRC)? I don't see how it is necessary to be an Austrian in order to get publiched on LRC. In fact, probably half of the articles published on LRC are by Austrians. Hell, you don't even need to be anti-state to be published on LRC. You do understand the difference between LRC and LvMI, right? So by your own admission, you have not read most of the thread,
Daniel: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "i was hoping for the banhammer to fall." I figured. How, er, open-minded and, er "libertarian"of you :-) How idiotic, er, idiotic of you. I didn't bother to read the meat of the thread, but how exactly does 911 tie into Austrian economics; and how does Austrian economics tie into LewRockwell.com (LRC)? I don't see how it is necessary to be an Austrian in order to get publiched on LRC. In fact, probably half of the articles published on LRC are by Austrians. Hell, you don't even need to be anti-state to be published on LRC. You do understand the difference between LRC and LvMI, right?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "i was hoping for the banhammer to fall." I figured. How, er, open-minded and, er "libertarian"of you :-)
"i was hoping for the banhammer to fall."
I figured. How, er, open-minded and, er "libertarian"of you :-)
How idiotic, er, idiotic of you. I didn't bother to read the meat of the thread, but how exactly does 911 tie into Austrian economics; and how does Austrian economics tie into LewRockwell.com (LRC)? I don't see how it is necessary to be an Austrian in order to get publiched on LRC. In fact, probably half of the articles published on LRC are by Austrians. Hell, you don't even need to be anti-state to be published on LRC. You do understand the difference between LRC and LvMI, right?
So by your own admission, you have not read most of the thread,
Yes.
but you _have_ drawn conclusions, and passed judgement already about its content, my thoughts etc., correct?
No. You are not correct. Perhaps I should have seperated the the first sentence in my response to you from the rest of the paragraph; but I figured the sarcasm was obvious. So, "How idiotic, er, idiotic of you." was a direct response to "I figured. How, er, open-minded and, er "libertarian"of you :-)"; but, apparently, you couldn't figure that out. The rest of the paragraph refered to the main topic of the thread. Thus, I would love for you to respond to the following:How exactly does 911 tie into Austrian economics; and how does Austrian economics tie into LewRockwell.com (LRC)? I don't see how it is necessary to be an Austrian in order to get publiched on LRC. In fact, probably half of the articles published on LRC are by Austrians. Hell, you don't even need to be anti-state to be published on LRC. You do understand the difference between LRC and LvMI, right?
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."
liberty student: LM, I just wanted to say, it is a great joy for me to see a former Marxist deconstruct Marxism.
Deconstruction? Where?
If you actually are interested in an insightful (but flawed, imo) deconstruction of Marxism, check out Rothbard's in the second volume of his book, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I once described myself as an anarcho-capitalist, in point of fact.
That's interesting, because your definition of anarcho-capitalism was false. I once had the nickname Big Bird, but I never got to star on Sesame Street.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:ow I forget if it was you or the other poster that attempted to accuse me of ignorance before, but its really not useful. Nobody has all knowledge of all nodes of any complex system. I am not topically omniscient. You are not topically omniscient. We work from there, human.
I don't know what that means. I wrote that it irritates me that the anarchist-left perpetuates strawmen, and that I worry that is not ignorance, but perhaps a more deliberate and malicious attack. No one is claiming omniscience or omnipresence. Neither are necessary to hold a simple and clear definition.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I do know that there are various positions taken by and understandings held by those to claim the label 'anarcho-capitalist.'
Definition by example will always fail. George Bush was a Christian. Then he murdered 1 million innocent Iraqis.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:There is, however, a distinct lack among a number of them of displayed understanding of the relations of production, and specifically regarding the history of state and function of nominal free markets. It is a unrealistic understanding of the status quo that complicates their usually sound understanding of praxeology.
What does this mean? Some people have a knowledge problem, and thus you use that to define anarcho-capitalism?
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Maybe you should display that it IS in fact a strawman, instead of constantly throwing acussations around.
Anyone who knows what anarcho-capitalism is, knows that it is a strawman. Anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than the logical conclusion of following the non-aggression principle to it's end. Anyone who claims it is something else is incorrect.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Do you accept that certain cooperations function as states?
No. Any cooperation by definition has to be voluntary, and it's impossible to establish a coercive monopoly (state) through voluntaryism.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Do you have a fruitful defintion of the state?
A state is a coercive monopolist.
You got anything else?
AnarchomarxistLibertaria: If you actually are interested in an insightful (but flawed, imo) deconstruction of Marxism, check out Rothbard's in the second volume of his book, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.
Where did Rothbard become 'flawed' in that work?
Laughing Man:I was retorting to your comment about how I started my discussion.
Right.. and it was irrelevent to continue in that vein.
Laughing Man:It propogates lassie-faire capitalism because it is the embodiment of natural rights theory which is a moralist theory. Austrians don't run around screaming 'We have to have capitalism because it will help 51% of the population!!'
Austrian economics propogates free markets because of that is the necessary economic application of the Austrian understanding of praxeology.
Laughing Man:We have a mixed economy. It is that simple. We have a private and public sector.
Uhhhhh.. yes. So it ^that your definition of a capitalist economy? Or is your definition of a capitalist economy one without state intervention? without coercion?
Laughing Man:I wouldn't consider them Marxists. Just dishwater socialists who were looking to leech onto a powerful figure and impregnant the movement with their their ideas in order to achieve power or status. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a necesscity for Marxism because historical materialism is the basis for the 'future' of Marxism back in 1848. Marxism is one of those 'wonderful' ideologies that cannot sustain itself if you take one of its foundations away. Historical materialism (ie class struggle) is one of those foundations.
Historical materialism is hardly negated by removing coercive revolution. You are ignoring the development of Marxist theory. Regardless, I don't care what you consider or don't consider a "real" Marxist. I like the word. It has an 'x.' I do agree that the term is often used by people who have no idea what term has historically entailed. It doesn't matter. What matteris the functional definition, not the etymology.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Austrian economics propogates free markets because of that is the necessary economic application of the Austrian understanding of praxeology.
I wasn't aware there are different understandings of praxeology.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria: Laughing Man:We have a mixed economy. It is that simple. We have a private and public sector. Uhhhhh.. yes. So it ^that your definition of a capitalist economy? Or is your definition of a capitalist economy one without state intervention? without coercion?
Fishing.
liberty student:That's interesting, because your definition of anarcho-capitalism was false. I once had the nickname Big Bird, but I never got to star on Sesame Street.
It wasn't 'my defintion.' It was a qualified subset of the practical application as perscribed in a theoretical context. Read the post.
liberty student:What does this mean? Some people have a knowledge problem, and thus you use that to define anarcho-capitalism?
No, thus I do not associate myself with a term that has an apparently systemic knowledge problem. I did not propose to provide a full defintion of anarcho-capitalism.
liberty student: Anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than the logical conclusion of following the non-aggression principle to it's end.
Then, according to that definition, I am an anarcho-capitalist. I still, however, shirk the term.
You know, we are likely closer to agreement than 99% of the people on Earth. Yet, you keep trying to make an issue of your nominal ideological loyalities x/or hostilities. This is why Austrian economics is incomplete.. it lacks a cohesive positive flipside.
; )
liberty student:I wasn't aware there are different understandings of praxeology.
There are.
liberty student:Fishing.
Avoidance.
So Austrians just come together to promote a free-market just so they can continue to be Austrians? That is an absurd logic. Praxeology was an invention to understand the principles of free-market, not the other way around. And why does the Austrian school promote that market? Because of natural rights theory. Not because the free-market 'just works' because it concides with human nature. Because it establishes the possibility for humanity to exist in an environment where growth is possible. The free-market is humanity, a command economy is anti-human. It destroys our very nature. That is why they propose the free-market. Not because without they would be out of a job.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Uhhhhh.. yes. So it ^that your definition of a capitalist economy? Or is your definition of a capitalist economy one without state intervention? without coercion?
I think I have just developed one of my own political laws. If you have Marxist in your political title, you are lacking in economic intelligence. A mixed economy is a combination of both capitalism and socialism. A mix of private and public (communal) property. So to answer your question, a mixed economy is not a 'capitalist' economy. It has capitalism in it, but it does not infer that it is completely capitalistic.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Historical materialism is hardly negated by removing coercive revolution.
Gradualist reform is merely the bourgeois subduing the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat in order to cause complacency. But please if you think I am wrong, quote me Marx saying the opposite.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Regardless, I don't care what you consider or don't consider a "real" Marxist. I like the word. It has an 'x.'
Compelling logic. Though I would say to you, if you are not a Marxist then drop the Marxist title in your label. It is not like you are losing anything of value.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:What matteris the functional definition, not the etymology.
To have a 'functional' definition you at least have to have an original definition. So yes, etymology matters.
Laughing Man: AnarchomarxistLibertaria: If you actually are interested in an insightful (but flawed, imo) deconstruction of Marxism, check out Rothbard's in the second volume of his book, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. Where did Rothbard become 'flawed' in that work?
I don't have the books on me at the moment, but I found it unsatisfactory insofar as Rothbard allowed Marxism to be oversimplified (especially with regards to the Marxist differentiation of financial capital and industrial capital) in order to dismiss it. He then claimed to have discredited every node of Marxism...
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I don't have the books on me at the moment, but I found it unsatisfactory insofar as Rothbard allowed Marxism to be oversimplified (especially with regards to the Marxist differentiation of financial capital and industrial capital) in order to dismiss it. He then claimed to have discredited every node of Marxism...
The basic foundation of Marxism is three issues:
-Metaphysical alienation (The premise that since we have not achieved 'class consciousness with one another we are separated from one another)
-Historical Materialism (The premise that history has and will continued to be moved forward by class struggle over the relations of production
-Labor Theory of Value (The premise that the pricing system in an economy is determined by socially necesscary labor for a commodity to be produced there by leading to surplus profit and 'exploitation')
Rothbard's criticque on historical materialism was spot on, he destroyed the metaphysical alienation in the class struggle chapter and the labor theory of value...need I actually bring that up?
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:It wasn't 'my defintion.' It was a qualified subset of the practical application as perscribed in a theoretical context. Read the post.
It was still false.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I did not propose to provide a full defintion of anarcho-capitalism.
Why not?
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Then, according to that definition, I am an anarcho-capitalist.
That is the definition.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I still, however, shirk the term.
I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:This is why Austrian economics is incomplete.. it lacks a cohesive positive flipside.
This is the fundamental gap. You demand outcomes that you suit your sensibilities. Many leftists have this problem. A sincere voluntaryist or anarchist has to be able to accept that the outcomes, that objective reality may not be best served by redefinition into something it is not. It is the classic nature vs. nurture.
This isn't an attack, just how I see it. Those people who have a lot of -isms and adjectives connected to their name, have built complex premises tainted with preference bias. I try to keep it simple. I have a better shot at being honest that way.
Laughing Man:and the labor theory of value...need I actually bring that up?
Mutualists have this LTV hybrid thing going on. You might want to follow up on it later, just for the sake of intellectual curiousity.
Laughing Man:Praxeology was an invention to understand the principles of free-market, not the other way around
Wrong. The concept of praxeology does not originate in the Austrian school or even in the economic branch of the social sciences.
Laughing Man:And why does the Austrian school promote that market? Because of natural rights theory. Not because the free-market 'just works' because it concides with human nature. Because it establishes the possibility for humanity to exist in an environment where growth is possible. The free-market is humanity, a command economy is anti-human. It destroys our very nature. That is why they propose the free-market. Not because without they would be out of a job.
What? Did you not read the part of Human Action where Mises addresses this? The root of at leaste Mises' Austrianism was explicitly his understanding of praxeology, not some psycho-philosophical wish fulfillment. And why are you talking about unemployment now?
Laughing Man: Gradualist reform is merely the bourgeois subduing the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat in order to cause complacency. But please if you think I am wrong, quote me Marx saying the opposite.
Did Marxism end with Marx? No. I just said in my immediately previous post that you were denying thelater developments of Marxist theory.
I call myself Anarcho Marxist to make it clear that I differentiate myself from (perceptions of) anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-corporatism.
No, you don't need to know the original definition to use the modern functional definition. Do you need to know that "gay" used to mean happy to use to mean homosexual?
liberty student:Mutualists have this LTV hybrid thing going on. You might want to follow up on it later, just for the sake of intellectual curiousity.
*Sigh*....You know its like..you burn Marx, poison him, beat him over the head, bury him in cement, scatter his entails on the Towers of London, drown him, kick him and call him a bourgeois hack..and his body of myths continues on. Though to be fair, he was just saying what the British school was...the British cannot be trusted. I think the British should start apologizing for Smith and Ricardo.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I call myself Anarcho Marxist to make it clear that I differentiate myself from (perceptions of) anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-corporatism.
That's awesome.
Who cares what other people perceive? Who cares what you call yourself?
I'm not being confrontational, I just can't understand why people are so concerned with labeling themselves, that they will make up new labels to address being confused with a false label.
Isn't it easier to simply reject the BS other people think, and identify yourself by your ideas and actions rather than names and factions?
Laughing Man: AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I don't have the books on me at the moment, but I found it unsatisfactory insofar as Rothbard allowed Marxism to be oversimplified (especially with regards to the Marxist differentiation of financial capital and industrial capital) in order to dismiss it. He then claimed to have discredited every node of Marxism... The basic foundation of Marxism is three issues: -Metaphysical alienation (The premise that since we have not achieved 'class consciousness with one another we are separated from one another) -Historical Materialism (The premise that history has and will continued to be moved forward by class struggle over the relations of production -Labor Theory of Value (The premise that the pricing system in an economy is determined by socially necesscary labor for a commodity to be produced there by leading to surplus profit and 'exploitation') Rothbard's criticque on historical materialism was spot on, he destroyed the metaphysical alienation in the class struggle chapter and the labor theory of value...need I actually bring that up?
God, I find the whole LTV concept nauseating. It is not actionable or relevant. The price mechanism (marginal value) >> LTV.
Social alienation awareness is valid...
Qualified historical materialism is valid and pertinent. Intergenerational social mobility has not negated class struggle, merely changed its dynamic. I embrace qualified historical materialism.. to fully understand the qualifications, please see Kevin Carson's essay I linked to, which is about just that subject.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Wrong. The concept of praxeology does not originate in the Austrian school or even in the economic branch of the social sciences.
Dazzle us with your logic. Where does it come from?
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:What? Did you not read the part of Human Action where Mises addresses this? The root of at leaste Mises' Austrianism was explicitly his understanding of praxeology, not some psycho-philosophical wish fulfillment. And why are you talking about unemployment now?
Mises liked to postulate that he was a value-free economist.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Did Marxism end with Marx? No.
Essentially yes. After Marx died, it was just revisionism after revisionism starting with Engels dismisal of historical materialism. There were no significate developments, just reformists and individuals like Lenin giving their interpretations of Marx.
Socialist fits just as well. And even better there is already a group called Anarcho-Socialists.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:No, you don't need to know the original definition to use the modern functional definition. Do you need to know that "gay" used to mean happy to use to mean homosexual?
Well it would be nice to know the actual word before you create a 'functional' definition would it not? I wouldn't run around saying "I'm a rapist" and then procede to say " It means I truly respect all women"
I care about other people's perceptions. I care because I am not a hermit. I already said that labels were inefficient and yes labelling (like music fads or fashion trends) is subject to cyclical obscurity.. thats the nature of the beast.
Also, it is not only other people's perceptions of anarcho capitalism. I perceive many nominal anarcho capitalists to be anarcho corporatists.. or even fascists. I have encountered a number of these people at my university. It it my interaction with other academics that has led me to differentiate myself from them.
Also, I have found that girls are really into "Marxists."
(jk)
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Social alienation awareness is valid...
Social alienation is just your subjective desire to want friends. Society is not running around thinking "Oh god what I wouldn't do to meld minds with Thomas Woods!"
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Qualified historical materialism is valid and pertinent. Intergenerational social mobility has not negated class struggle, merely changed its dynamic. I embrace qualified historical materialism.. to fully understand the qualifications, please see Kevin Carson's essay I linked to, which is about just that subject.
Now see this is where economists step into the historian playground and try to push us off the jungle jim. Granted historians are not all great economists but that doesn't mean economists know anything about history. The historical materialism is a dialectic, a piece of speculative history meant to explain all of human action. It's not some light switch that you can turn on and off. One cannot say "Well look at event A....clearly the historical materialism dialectic is working" then turn around and say "Ok look at event B...the historical materialism dialectic doesn't explain why that happens." This is why the speculative history field died after Marx, he was actually the last to propose a speculative history theory up until Francis Fukuyama who proposed history will end because we have achieved democracy [Its almost Hegelian in nature and Ha ha just as wrong]. Speculative history is an all or nothing explaintion as to the reason behind events occurring in human history. Marx postulated it was economics that moved history...well Marx was wrong.
Laughing Man:A mixed economy is a combination of both capitalism and socialism. A mix of private and public (communal) property. So to answer your question, a mixed economy is not a 'capitalist' economy. It has capitalism in it, but it does not infer that it is completely capitalistic.
I would argue it has exchange, but not free exchange, and can't be called capitalism. All property ownership is based upon state titles. The system is completely socialist IMO.
mr. man of many labels - after you graduate, you'll discover that women are more into capitalist, in the meantime contact mr1001nights on youtube for some dating, fashion, and philosophy tips.
LS is right. Keep it simple, work it out, see the truth, and move on ... now back to aluminum cans piercing steel gratings ...
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
liberty student:All property ownership is based upon state titles. The system is completely socialist IMO.
Well if it was done by voluntary exchange in a non-criminal manner then I think it to be private property even if the state honors it. The state is a non-sequitur in this issue because if it is their factual property then it will continue to be theirs once the state is gone. If it is not their property then it will be returned to the rightful owners or homesteaded.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I care about other people's perceptions.
That is a miserable way to go through life amigo. Most people are idiots.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:I perceive many nominal anarcho capitalists to be anarcho corporatists.. or even fascists.
Sure, but they are not anarcho-capitalists. So you're constructing a false paradigm based on exceptions.
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Also, I have found that girls are really into "Marxists."
Not the ones worth keeping. There is nothing sexier than a woman who "gets" capitalism.
From before,
AnarchomarxistLibertaria:You know, we are likely closer to agreement than 99% of the people on Earth. Yet, you keep trying to make an issue of your nominal ideological loyalities x/or hostilities.
This is funny, because it is actually what you are doing. I don't care about nominal differences. If you really believe in non-aggression, then whatever conclusions you draw, provided they are consistent with non-aggression, are fine by me. I don't really care how you live your life, as long as you don't mess with mine.
I find most mutualists are males under the age of 30, discovering left-libertarianism and anarchism through the lens of academia or dead end jobs. I have yet to meet a successful mutualist entrepreneur, and by success I mean someone who does a lot of market transactions relative to the size of the market he is participating in. I want to meet one, because I want to understand as an intellectual curiosity, how they are able to apply mutualist theory to entrepreneurship.
I theorize, this is because the anti-capitalist sentiment, and doublethink of the egalitarian-left isn't attractive to people with a developed (and necessary) rational egoism that every great entrepreneur is driven by. It's not permanent, people can change their minds. But the bottom line, is that ceteris paribus, anarcho-capitalists are able to compete in our handicapped market and leftists generally do not. And before someone brings up participation and success as proof of vulgar libertarianism, I want to make it clear, the state is an obstacle to small business, and small business entrepreneurs have to be very agile, and very competent to find ways to compete around the state. In some ways, the state makes things much tougher on small firms than it would be for them in a free market.
Nonetheless, I don't see leftists engaging in organized voluntary exchange, and I really question leftism's survival potential in a free market environment.
And in a post-state world, the entrepreneurs and capitalists (low time preference savers) will have to replace the few key civil services (roads, education, security) that the state claims to provide. If mutualists are not able to contribute in the post-state market economy, then I really don't see a future involving their ideas.
My 4.5 cents.
Laughing Man: AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Social alienation awareness is valid... Social alienation is just your subjective desire to want friends. Society is not running around thinking "Oh god what I wouldn't do to meld minds with Thomas Woods!" AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Qualified historical materialism is valid and pertinent. Intergenerational social mobility has not negated class struggle, merely changed its dynamic. I embrace qualified historical materialism.. to fully understand the qualifications, please see Kevin Carson's essay I linked to, which is about just that subject. Now see this is where economists step into the historian playground and try to push us off the jungle jim. Granted historians are not all great economists but that doesn't mean economists know anything about history. The historical materialism is a dialectic, a piece of speculative history meant to explain all of human action. It's not some light switch that you can turn on and off. One cannot say "Well look at event A....clearly the historical materialism dialectic is working" then turn around and say "Ok look at event B...the historical materialism dialectic doesn't explain why that happens." This is why the speculative history field died after Marx, he was actually the last to propose a speculative history theory up until Francis Fukuyama who proposed history will end because we have achieved democracy [Its almost Hegelian in nature and Ha ha just as wrong]. Speculative history is an all or nothing explaintion as to the reason behind events occurring in human history. Marx postulated it was economics that moved history...well Marx was wrong.
Social alienation, Marxist or not, is hardly limited to friendship. Do you reject the entire concept of social capital? (I know you might..)
QUALIFIED historical materialism is involved in the anarcho-Marxist synthesis, as I made clear a number of times. I don't know why you bothered typing all that about unqualified, undeveloped historical materialism. Qualified HM is not absolutist. It does not require infallability. Neither does praxeology btw..
Laughing Man: AnarchomarxistLibertaria:Wrong. The concept of praxeology does not originate in the Austrian school or even in the economic branch of the social sciences. Dazzle us with your logic. Where does it come from?
The concept (and term) of Praxeology comes from French philosopher of the Realist school, Alfred Espinas. It merely means a non-normative application of empirical human behavior patterns, which is how also how Mises used it. That is not "logic," by the way. It is topical knowledge.
Laughing Man:After Marx died, it was just revisionism after revisionism starting with Engels dismisal of historical materialism. There were no significate developments, just reformists and individuals like Lenin giving their interpretations of Marx.
You say revision, I say development. This goes back to the differentiation between function and origin..
Laughing Man:Socialist fits just as well. And even better there is already a group called Anarcho-Socialists.
I like anarcho-socialists evel less than anarcho-capitalists. I'm not going to lump myselves in with them. Besides, theyre largely unsophisticated and dont appreciate classical liberal thinking.
liberty student:And in a post-state world, the entrepreneurs and capitalists (low time preference savers) will have to replace the few key civil services (roads, education, security) that the state claims to provide. If mutualists are not able to contribute in the post-state market economy, then I really don't see a future involving their ideas.
I disagree, but I disagree based on my understanding of behavioral economics and psychology. Communalism is fundamental to certain kinds of entrepeneurship and productivity and personal utility. But that's another discussion..
liberty student:This is funny, because it is actually what you are doing. I don't care about nominal differences.
Then why did you make an issue of my "labels" and name? I did not start this friendly conflict.