plwk wrote:The only religion allowed...
Sorry catmoon...this thread ain't abt ya....
AlexanderS wrote:Scary regime that is.
catmoon wrote:Ah Marx. I think his only serious error was that he understimated the human potential for corruption, and the consequent difficulty of finding morally qualified people to lead his visionary governments. As for the opiate of the masses, he may have been generally right. How many people hide away in their religions, their churches and temples just to escape reality?
Beatzen wrote:But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.
Marx certainly wasn't "just a social critic". The First International, just to start.
That Marx was an analyst and a social critic okay, he definitely was not a revolutionary activist, but Marx was an ardent capitalist??? You on drugs or something? Should you be on drugs? Where exactly in Marxs voluminous social critique did you read a statement to that effect?Beatzen wrote:I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.
gregkavarnos wrote:Karl Marx talked about the inherent contradictions of capital that give rise to an impoverished proletariat and that the social/historical consequences of this dialectic will be the collapse of capitalism and the institution of a proletarian centred political/economic/social structure.
You are talking about Karl Marx right? Not Groucho, Harpo or Chico Marx? Right???
Or maybe you read the Smith and Keynes translation of his works?
That's the problem with a linear historically deterministic model of social/economic development.Namdrol wrote:I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.
Namdrol wrote:I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.
What Marx was, in fact, was an idealogue of urbanism and industrial civilization.
In terms of Smith, there is in fact very little in Marx that goes beyond Smith's labor theory of wealth. Marx's Capital is essentially a commentary on Wealth of Nations, properly understood.
zangskar wrote:A famous economist once said all of modern economics is just a commentary on Wealth of Nations, which is also true in a way, though it's certainly something of a simplification. The view that Marx doesn't represent anything really new is only true in terms of what has became modern, formalized neoclassical economics. From the point of view of the history of "mainstream" economics then yes, Marx was basically an insignificant German economist who hardly deserves to have his name mentioned. But that's certainly only true within that narrow subject, and completely wrong from the point of view of either political or social science, or history more generally.
Beatzen, you "Read Marx religiously" but you don't know what the First International is.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests