The VEF Philosophy Club

[b119a]

Since you lay it on the platter what do you want to know. My philosophy is comedy is king never ending insults and getting weird about it never works no shit never works gets weird there's the no shit idol.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

I assume you simply ignored the provided link. Otherwise you would have no reason to ask this question.

I did follow the link, which is why I asked for an explanation for those of us not caught up in the group think of your Marxist quasi-Platonic doctrine.

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Menger and other marginalists represent a step backwards not only in philosophical terms. Their approach is a simplification of the already more advanced bourgeois economy. Ricardo himself recognized in his distribution theory the opposition of existing class interests. However, the emergence of classical economics still falls into the period of the undeveloped class struggle between wage labor and capital.

For marginalists, the exchange value of a commodity, and its use-value, are one and the same. You could compare this to the attempt to judge the quality of a car only by its color, or to explain a lightning by gods in the sky, which of course is completely idiotic, nonscientific undertaking.

The Marxist approach, on the other hand, is methological in that it distinguishes between essence and appearance of a thing. Additional factors of underlying socio-economic dependencies are considered. The historical development of the mode of production and the prevailing forms of society itself are taken into account in price formation. Marx is therefore easily able to explain socio-economic phenomena such as the rising wealth gap within capitalist societies. Even if they wear the democratic fig leaf. For marginalists this is still an inexplicable process due to an obscure malfunctioning of the imaginary invisible hand of the free market. In essence they resemble Plato's caveman.

The Marxist theory is therefore in several ways scientifically justified. Menger was, at best, an apologist of the existing status quo, who saw ignorance as virtue and progress as unnecessary trouble. He simply ignored the fact that the entire history of the universe is a single accumulation of constant movement.

Apparently he is not the only one who thinks that way.

Menger's simplification was actually a step forward in cutting away the mental masturbation of all kinds of language games and esoteric distinctions. Please be reminded of Wittgenstein's warning that language has its own dynamics. We must always guard against the danger that we begin to allow our explanations and concepts to take over our consciousness and reasoning and begin interfering with our observations of empirical data.

All during the time I was embracing Marxist dogma I had the feeling that there was a flaw in the Labor Theory of Value, just as I felt there were problems with Descartes' method in philosophy. We are not good at all in distinguishing "between the essence and appearance of a thing." In fact, I would question whether we can ascertain an essence at all. Exchange values and use values are both fluid and relative. We are dealing with phenomena similar to location and momentum in quantum mechanics here.

Marx is on to something in the dynamic of capitalism, but so are Menger and the Austrians. In the final analysis, capitalism is but a transitory social arrangement along the path from hunter gathering to a sustainable civilization, if the latter is possible at all. We have mostly moved beyond slavery and feudalism (although there are still some holdouts.) Capitalists like the Koch brothers seem to prefer denying the reality of climate change and unable to understand that excess returns to capital and over concentration of wealth are unsustainable. Such people are the poster children for the argument against the transfer of large amounts of inherited wealth.

[b119a]

Love in action secretaries impress me when they type fast love letters are obsolete I understand you're like me different degrees of thankedness.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That's simply wrong.


China was resolutely Marxist. They sat around reading Marx, all the time. They had universities of Marxism.

If you read the Communist Manifesto, and then the works of Mao, you'll see that Mao is directly taking Marx, along with Lenin and Stalin, and putting these ideas into practice.

Marx was totally opposed to having children work.
Their place was at school.

Chinese leaders never get any problem with that.
Even today, Chinese government let 13 to 14 years old children working 13 hours a day, having 1 day free every two days and one week free a year.

That has nothing to do with Marx's theory, absolutely nothing.


Here is taken from Karl Marx original work:

For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

It's quite clear that Maoism was a rogue Marxism. So rogue, that has nothing to do with Marxism.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Marx was totally opposed to having children work.
Their place was at school.

Marx never actually ran a country, did he?

Originally Posted by xyzde69

It's quite clear that Maoism was a rogue Marxism. So rogue, that has nothing to do with Marxism.

"rogue Marxism"

I like that.

See, as it happens. Every time someone implements Marxism in the real world, it turns out to be what you call "rogue Marxism". Every time.

Have you stopped to ask yourself why that is?

Here's the question I put to you above:

Again, you struggle with the obvious: that the fantasy of Marxism is somehow different than the reality of catastrophe which occurs every time its implemented.

To keep this thread a bit distinct from the Communism thread-- let's move this to a philosophical issue:

"What is the meaning of an ideal, which turns out to be a disaster every time you attempt to make it real?"

That is-- let's say I have a notion that I am a genius of naval architecture. My ideas for ship design are just revolutionary and brilliant. I've written books about them, explaining how my "Deepsepia vessels" are better than any ship today.



You say "OK, sounds great-- let's build one of these great ships"

You do, and it promptly sinks.

I say "Oh, that wasn't really a _real_ 'Deepsepia Vessel' -- they builders just didn't know what they were doing. The design was genius, its just those stupid builders who screwed it up"

So you build another ship, to my brilliant design-- and it sinks too.

So: how many times does something have to fail in practice before you consider that it might be the design, not the implementation, that is at fault?

Do you have any answer? How many times does an idea, when implemented, fail in practice before it occurs to you that the problem might be with the idea, not the implementation?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Do you have any answer? How many times does an idea, when implemented, fail in practice before it occurs to you that the problem might be with the idea, not the implementation?

As an ex-engineer I know that a good concept often need a lot of tests, experimenting a lot of failures or have to wait progress before to become efficient.

You defined yourself as a Socio-Democrat, as I was.
Historically speaking socio-democrats were (and still are) Marxist on a lot of social aspects.
We benefited a lot of the results of the terrible social conflicts of the two last centuries.
If you are really a socio-democrat, you must strongly defend very intelligent Karl Marx's analyses instead to denigrate them with uncorrect examples.

The problem is that a lot of social-democracies let the merchants taking the reins of their nations.

I do not believe in greed, I'll never defend environmental devastation.
That's what you defend. Maybe not in your country, but at least abroad.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

As an ex-engineer I know that a good concept often need a lot of tests, experimenting a lot of failures or have to wait progress before to become efficient.

So we've had dozens of Marxist/Communist countries -- not one of them would you choose to live in.

This is billions of people's lives in many countries over a century.

As an engineer, you have to have an orientation to the empirical: "it works in theory but fails in practice" isn't an engineering maxim.

Just how many generations of North Koreans have to starve and suffer before the light comes on "they're doing it better in Seoul than Pyongyang?"

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

As an engineer, you have to have an orientation to the empirical: "it works in theory but fails in practice" isn't an engineering maxim.

Correct, but that's often a question of time (sometimes several generations) before to reach the goal.
It was the case with Leonardo Da Vinci who planned to fly but couldn't. Humanity had to wait.

According to Marx (but I agree that he will be wrong as long as people would be as elitist as you are), it only will be a question of time before social classes disappear and theoretical communism will be available.

A little bit more than 100 years ago, slavery still was allowed in your country.
Only 50 years ago, American Black people still had not the same rights as white ones. Martin Luther King was murdered. Still today, a US President was elected thanks to, what we could consider, racist comments.

But slowly the social conditions improve for Afro/American people, even if they often represent the poorest minority.

For sure, US White people hardly wanted to nicely treat their minorities.
Observing that you come from a culture that still is strongly racist, I understand that's hard for you to like a fair society that want to destroy social classes.
That's quite well known that social classes are tinted in the most democratic country in the world.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Just how many generations of North Koreans have to starve and suffer before the light comes on "they're doing it better in Seoul than Pyongyang?"

Maybe as long as Afro American people will get the same quality of life as the European white ones in America.

Following a little bit Karl Marx' concepts would be nice for the American minorities. Isn't it?

Quoting Noam Chomsky, your government don't get any trouble to make embargo against small communist countries but also has no problem to make business with hands-cutting monarchs of Saudi Arabia.

Don't you disqualify yourself in using North Korea to describe Karl Marx' theory?

I published on this forum several sentences of Marx. You published here nothing of his theory, but only facts that had nothing to do about his humanist analyses. Nothing.
It's like to report gossip about Pascal or Nietsche without using any references of them.

If you represent the classical American social democrat, spitting on thinkers like Karl Marx or Bakounin, for sure you dislike humanism. But that's your right.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Marx's Labor theory of value deals with the problem of exploitation under capitalist conditions of ownership and production. Intellectual property rights and patents constitute the means of production in this case. In capitalism, these means of production are private property, and serve exclusively to get on the gravy train of profit i.e. the generated added value.

Menger and other marginalists represent a step backwards not only in philosophical terms. Their approach is a simplification of the already more advanced bourgeois economy. Ricardo himself recognized in his distribution theory the opposition of existing class interests. However, the emergence of classical economics still falls into the period of the undeveloped class struggle between wage labor and capital.

For marginalists, the exchange value of a commodity, and its use-value, are one and the same. You could compare this to the attempt to judge the quality of a car only by its color, or to explain a lightning by gods in the sky, which of course is a completely idiotic, nonscientific undertaking.

The Marxist approach, on the other hand, is methodological in that it distinguishes between essence and appearance of a thing. Additional factors of underlying socio-economic dependencies are considered. The historical development of the mode of production and the prevailing forms of society itself are taken into account in price formation. Marx is therefore easily able to explain socio-economic phenomena such as the rising wealth gap within capitalist societies. Even if they wear the democratic fig leaf. For marginalists this is still an inexplicable process due to an obscure malfunctioning of the imaginary invisible hand of the free market. In essence they resemble Plato's caveman.

The Marxist theory is therefore in several ways scientifically justified. Menger was, at best, an apologist of the existing status quo, who saw ignorance as virtue and progress as unnecessary trouble. He simply ignored the fact that the entire history of the universe is a single accumulation of constant movement.

Apparently he is not the only one who thinks that way.

OK, I reacted harshly to this posting. I do wish to acknowledge that Marxist economics is the best tool we currently have for highlighting the excess appropriation of wealth by capitalists. As Nobody1 has stated, capitalist economic theorists have many problems making their models work. A fundamental truth of economics is that the economy cannot flow if sufficient investment is not maintained. Very clearly material inputs have no way of capturing returns and excess value extracted by labor is self correcting. As Marx duly noted, the excess returns claimed by capital periodically must be "liquidated" by the systemic crashes that inflict widespread suffering.

I apologize to Nobody1 for reading him the riot act.

[Roubignol]

OLD AND YOUNG WOMEN

Why steal you along so furtively in the twilight, Zarathustra? And what hide you so carefully under your mantle?
Is it a treasure that has been given you? Or a child that has been born you? Or go you yourself on a thief's errand, you friend of the evil?
- Truly, my brother, said Zarathustra, it is a treasure that has been given me: it is a little truth which I carry.
But it is naughty, like a young child; and if I hold not its mouth, it screams too loudly.
As I went on my way alone today, at the hour when the sun declines, there met me an old woman, and she spoke thus to my soul: "Much has Zarathustra spoken also to us women, but never spoke he to us concerning woman."
And I answered her: "Concerning woman, one should only talk to men."
"Talk also to me of woman," said she; "I am old enough to forget it presently."
And I obliged the old woman and spoke thus to her: Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution - it is called pregnancy.
Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man?
Two different things wants the true man: danger and diversion. Therefore wants he woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.
Too sweet fruits - these the warrior likes not. Therefore likes he woman; - bitter is even the sweetest woman.
Better than man does woman understand children, but man is more childish than woman.
In the true man there is a child hidden: it wants to play. Up then, you women, and discover the child in man!
A plaything let woman be, pure and fine like the precious stone, illumined with the virtues of a world not yet come.
Let the beam of a star shine in your love! Let your hope say: "May I bear the overman!"
In your love let there be valour! With your love shall you assail him who inspires you with fear!
In your love be your honor! Little does woman understand otherwise about honor. But let this be your honor: always to love more than you are loved, and never be the second.
Let man fear woman when she loves: then makes she every sacrifice, and everything else she regards as worthless.
Let man fear woman when she hats: for man in his innermost soul is merely evil; woman, however, is mean.
Whom hats woman most? - Thus spoke the iron to the loadstone: "I hate you most, because you attract, but are too weak to draw to you."
The happiness of man is, "I will." The happiness of woman is, "He will."
"Behold. "Behold. now has the world become perfect!" - thus thinks every woman when she obeys with all her love.
Obey, must the woman, and find a depth for her surface. Surface is woman's soul, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water.
Man's soul, however, is deep, its current gushes in subterranean caverns: woman surmises its force, but comprehends it not.
Then answered me the old woman: "Many fine things has Zarathustra said, especially for those who are young enough for them.
Strange! Zarathustra knows little about woman, and yet he is right about them! does this happen, because with women nothing is impossible?
And now accept a little truth by way of thanks! I am old enough for it!
Swaddle it up and hold its mouth: otherwise it will scream too loudly, the little truth."
"Give me, woman, your little truth!" said I. And thus spoke the old woman: "you go to women? Do not forget your whip!" -
Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Friedrich Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883)