Anyone ever come across this claim by a Marxist?: Praxeology is bourgeoisie because Ludwig von Mises was an aristocrat? So what does that make Marxism, bourgeoisie as well since Marx was bourgeoisie?
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."
Daniel Muffinburg: Anyone ever come across this claim by a Marxist?: Praxeology is bourgeoisie because Ludwig von Mises was an aristocrat? So what does that make Marxism, bourgeoisie as well since Marx was bourgeoisie?
No. Clearly you haven't read Marx and you just don't understand him, probably because you are a capitalist pig.
Daniel Muffinburg:So what does that make Marxism, bourgeoisie as well since Marx was bourgeoisie?
Indeed.
Pretty sure Mises covers that in Human Action under polylogism.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Daniel Muffinburg: Anyone ever come across this claim by a Marxist?: Praxeology is bourgeoisie because Ludwig von Mises was an aristocrat?
Anyone ever come across this claim by a Marxist?: Praxeology is bourgeoisie because Ludwig von Mises was an aristocrat?
Wouldn`t that make praxeology aristocratic?
I hear it every day. That's when you know you've won.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Marx was part of the bourgeoisie class, no?
The thing I love most about the Austrian school is that people are viewed as people, and not classes of people, ie methodological individualism.
ViennaSausage:Marx was part of the bourgeoisie class, no?
Well Marx's followers got around this by saying the intellectual transcends the class warfare and able to see it in all its facets, kind of like a spirit hovering over us. I think Kaul Kautsky was the one who said this.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: ViennaSausage:Marx was part of the bourgeoisie class, no? Well Marx's followers got around this by saying the intellectual transcends the class warfare and able to see it in all its facets, kind of like a spirit hovering over us. I think Kaul Kautsky was the one who said this.
Then Mises transcends his aristocracy as well.
I am always eternally curious about marxism (since it is so curious) and I would just ask, isn't it impossible for anyone to transcend class warfare but for the fact that that someone is the culmination of philosophy (since philosophy is the fullest development of spirit?).
So Mises couldn't transcend class war because he wasn't the culmination of the spirit?
I for one don't see why they would argue against anyone. Since everything is an historical inevitability.
Historical materialism means there is no free will to change your actions. Ethics is also a part of the capitalist superstructure, so the rightness or wrongness of Mises saying anything is moot.
I agree with Lenin when he told Emma Goldman (as many Soviet-apologists did) that "free speech is a bourgeois notion." Then bourgeois or not; the right thing for them to do is to be quiet I guess.
fakename:I am always eternally curious about marxism (since it is so curious) and I would just ask, isn't it impossible for anyone to transcend class warfare but for the fact that that someone is the culmination of philosophy (since philosophy is the fullest development of spirit?).
Do you mean to say that individuals are the collimation of the factors of production?
John Ess:I for one don't see why they would argue against anyone. Since everything is an historical inevitability.
Good point. Another contradiction of Marxism.
John Ess:Historical materialism means there is no free will to change your actions. Ethics is also a part of the capitalist superstructure, so the rightness or wrongness of Mises saying anything is moot.
Absolutely, the good is whatever advances the revolution, the bad whatever prevents it.
John Ess:Historical materialism means there is no free will to change your actions.
Does historical materialism suggest that the world is pre-determined?
In hegelianism (as far as I can understand it) philosophy is the culmination of history and the ultimate end point of spirit (the latter meaning mind/being/reality). When being finally realizes or understands itself (in the guise of the thinking man?) then philosophy is reached.
But in marxian hegelianism I suppose spirit can very much be translated into factors of production. In whatever sense, what I mean is that individuals that are objectively correct are the ones who have reached the culmination of spirit or perhaps for marx,the same thing, the proletarian mind-set: the proletarian sees everything objectively as opposed to the bourgeois. So I'm not sure one can say that Mises "knew" anything if one was a marxist. Also perhaps marx knew stuff yet came from the bourgeois because in hegelianism every system save the last one is contradictory so who better to expose capitalism than a bourgeois himself?
I'm not sure if your average marxist actually thinks like this though, they seem to have a concern for the poor which really doesn't seem (to me) to be the whole point of marxism. The point of marxism is to usher in a new utopian age because all things are ultimately leading you there not to "help the poor".
fakename:In hegelianism (as far as I can understand it) philosophy is the culmination of history and the ultimate end point of spirit (the latter meaning mind/being/reality). When being finally realizes or understands itself (in the guise of the thinking man?) then philosophy is reached.
Absolutely right but Marx himself diverted from Hegelianism in predicting the future events and in terms of what motivated history. To Hegel it was the will or spirit but to Marx it was the factors of production.
fakename:But in marxian hegelianism I suppose spirit can very much be translated into factors of production.
Exactly.
fakename:In whatever sense, what I mean is that individuals that are objectively correct are the ones who have reached the culmination of spirit or perhaps for marx,the same thing, the proletarian mind-set: the proletarian sees everything objectively as opposed to the bourgeois. So I'm not sure one can say that Mises "knew" anything if one was a marxist. Also perhaps marx knew stuff yet came from the
Yes, class consciousness and the ability to will nature to their desires.
fakename:I'm not sure if your average marxist actually thinks like this though, they seem to have a concern for the poor which really doesn't seem (to me) to be the whole point of marxism. The point of marxism is to usher in a new utopian age because all things are ultimately leading you there not to "help the poor".
And to this I turn to 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 rationalise and crystallise their instincts. And these people, quite rightly, are not concerned with the metaphysical refinements of a theory of value. They accept the fact of, exploitation' which has been proved 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 hisreferences 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 who is responsible for our unhappiness. This is what Marx <lid, and here lies the secret of his influence. To consider -whether Marx was' right' or , wrong'; to dredge Volumes 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.' - The Socialist Tradition
ViennaSausage:Does historical materialism suggest that the world is pre-determined?
Yes.
That apple must be a vegetable because it came from the orange stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
And you Che Guevarra boy don't you have Global warming denier to lynch or something?
Giant_Joe: Daniel Muffinburg: Anyone ever come across this claim by a Marxist?: Praxeology is bourgeoisie because Ludwig von Mises was an aristocrat? So what does that make Marxism, bourgeoisie as well since Marx was bourgeoisie? No. Clearly you haven't read Marx and you just don't understand him, probably because you are a capitalist pig.
Easy hoss, Giant_Joe isn't a socialist.
Yes. Indeed Mises was pretty poor after about 1940 and even before that he wasn't very wealthy, Marx was richer than Mises.
sounded like it.Never the less why jump all over that person?
joe costello: sounded like it.Never the less why jump all over that person?
He was joking.
oh lol
I've read that Marx was not rich and actually lived off of Engels, a true member of the bourgeoisie. I do not know if this is true though.
Mostly because Daniel deserves it for his irrational love of PS3.
bloomj31: I've read that Marx was not rich and actually lived off of Engels, a true member of the bourgeoisie. I do not know if this is true though.
He was the son of a rich lawyer, I believe (a rich something, at least). He then married into a very aristocratic family (and would mistreat and neglect poor Mrs. Marx throughout their marriage). He got his funds from the wealthy manufacturer and only friend, Engels. He was a leech more than anything else, very suitable for a communist.
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.
Laughing Man: joe costello: sounded like it.Never the less why jump all over that person? Mostly because Daniel deserves it for his irrational love of PS3.
[Russian accent] It's a particularly rational brand.
Exactly. It's a bourgeois console. As we had discussed in another thread, the eggboggs 360 is the console of the proletariat. ;)
Whats the wii? ><
Beefheart: bloomj31: I've read that Marx was not rich and actually lived off of Engels, a true member of the bourgeoisie. I do not know if this is true though. He was the son of a rich lawyer, I believe (a rich something, at least). He then married into a very aristocratic family (and would mistreat and neglect poor Mrs. Marx throughout their marriage). He got his funds from the wealthy manufacturer and only friend, Engels. He was a leech more than anything else, very suitable for a communist.
That looks about right. Marx, after getting out of college and before hooking up with Engels, had basically no job and never really looked for one, just worked for random radical newspapers, as a result 2 of his children died of stress and malnutrition and he was always extremely abusive and EXPLOITATIVE of those around him. After those (10?) years or so Marx met up with Engels and became wealthier than he was even at birth, at his death his wife was routinely holding parties for bourgeois members of society and they were living in the top 5% of English society. Engels was a factory owner whose workers were treated about as well as most others of the time period.
Marx was a disgusting man.... And also an antisemitic descendant of a Jewish family (lol)
Also, as a proud member of the bourgeoisie I would like to say that I adore my PS3 and I happily spit upon the inferior second hand Xbox 360 and its proletarian owners.... Most of whom are poor and being exploited in my factory as we speak, and cannot return to their wives and children in time to get any descent gaming time in..... WAHAHAHA!!!! (Readjusts monocle and pets puffy white cat which is sitting on my lap and then counts money out of his giant sack of the stuff)
Giant_Joe: Laughing Man: joe costello: sounded like it.Never the less why jump all over that person? Mostly because Daniel deserves it for his irrational love of PS3. Exactly. It's a bourgeois console. As we had discussed in another thread, the eggboggs 360 is the console of the proletariat. ;)
That's funny as hell.
Don't argue with Marxists,they know they are full of shit but they just don't care.They want to make you stand there and explain logic to them.
and then refuse to agree
All they understand are the machine guns and or real political pressure
joe costello: All they understand are the machine guns and or real political pressure
It seems to me there are lots of people like that. Wouldn't let it worry you.
You could argue that Marx was being paid for his value to Engles. I doubt Engles would have given Marx money if he did not value his work.
I wonder how Engels justified his earning of profits from the sweat of his workers, or for that matter how Marx agreed to accept such "evil" money. Guess consistency was not their sharp sword...
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
abskebabs: I wonder how Engels justified his earning of profits from the sweat of his workers, or for that matter how Marx agreed to accept such "evil" money. Guess consistency was not their sharp sword...
Well you have to remember, much of his humanist works which deal with communism were only actually printed until the 1930's.