“Can you prove that nothing exists? Nothing, by definition, cannot be recognized.”
I thought you cappies were against planning? 
If you don’t like the way I’m running it, make your own.
You also can’t find “heat,” however, I consider my refridgerator to be a source of cold.
Of course I can’t prove nothing exists, because something does exist. If nothing can’t be recognise, then what does the word “nothing” even mean? Is it just meaningless?
"Also, really? Which topic has more people caring about? This is Mises.org, which one do you THINK people will care about? "
I cannot make sense out of that. The second…statement, is not a complete sentence. The third, asks between two things (which i think you mean to be menger v. marx) nut then offer a website and no alternative. How am i supposed to respond?
Mises forum statement then MRN that which then you then care about?
I don’t know what nothing is. What is zero?
“Cold” is a term for the absence of heat. There is no such thing as a “source of cold”. That’s as nonsensical as saying something is a good “source of space.”
Capitalists are all for planning one’s own private matters. It was a suggestion and it makes more sense. Chapter 1 is pages 26-58. Chapter 2 is pages 59-65. Chapter 3 is pages 66-101. Chapter 4 is pages 103-108. It’s a little bumpy if you ask me.
you are feeding the troll.
He is as logically consistent as he thinks his handle is idiosyncratic. mhah mhaa mhaha (pinky out sipping wine) myes.
Marx is doubtless a “Black swan event” . My problem with him is of course not that the “Moor” (as he was called by many due to his semitic dark skin) was a filthy dude who didn’t bath; or because he was an adulterer who saw it fit to routinely fornicate his unpaid maid (never got a penny for his work from the Marx family) having a child with her. No. My real problem as you can imagine is the fact that he created a totally idiotic " labor theory of value", incredibly absurd, which was adopted by half of the world!!
Why is Marx still talked about, considering his economic theory was and is a heap of rubbish?? Preciseley because so many countries adopted it. Now, why did this happen? My take is that this good man put the focus on the horrible conditions of workers during the industrial revolution, and becasue he put forward the plight of workers, children and women included, revolutionaries mistook this for the real thing and ran away with it…
Not many have heard from a coetaneous socialist, Robert Owen who really addressed the horrific labor conditions of worker in those times and DID something about it (not that his ideas were better than capitalism), unlike Marx who only spurted garbage, non stop.
It is nothing less than amazing that he and his ideas are still talked about, instead of being cast to the trashbin of history over a hundred years ago, as other totally stupid ideas were.
Am I? I don’t know if there is some sort of recurring problem with Marxists around here but it seems like a simple case of trying to reconcile with the enemy. It may at least be beneficial to read Das Kapital in order to refute the esoteric bits of Marxism that communists use in attempt to make themselves sound like they know what they’re talking about. Of course I don’t believe people are led to Marxist beliefs for reasons other than that it correlates with their general hatred for the fact that not all people are equal.
@Scaramanga I share your thoughts exactly about Marx, and Owen for that matter. I recognize that Marx was a genius and had some extremely accurate analysis of how the world worked, but to follow his theories would be to deny simple economic logic. When I learned the fundamentals of Marxian economics I knew to dismiss it almost completely. I don’t think the labor theory of value was even an original Marxian concept (wasn’t it from Wealth of Nations?), but it is easily destroyed by basic understanding of economics.
"He is as logically consistent as he thinks his handle is idiosyncratic. "
that statement was at Pizza von Marx not you.
and yea i agree, marxist economics is pretty much ridiculous. His hatred for the world stemmed from him being an embarassment of the aristocracy that he was a member of. He had an illegitimate kid that he made engles take care of, his peers in the aristocracy secretly mocked him behind his back, his wife cheated on him, and he hated religion because he was jewish and other people discriminated against jews. He was full of hate because he was a douche and purposely tried to obfuscate economic language to twist people’s emotion towards his ends. He was smart, but not a genius.
EDIT: There have been plenty of thinkers who have theorized about how the power around the world is distributed and why. Look at Pythagoras and Plato. Pythagoreans hid the irrational number and let people believe in myths because they thought that people couldn’t handle the truth. Plato was scolded for writing about the metaphysical aspects of what was called alchemy later. His theory of the soul was like a huge secret. Bronze, silver, and gold transmutation? It was their way of legitimizing illegitimate power. It is done through the information people have and how they interpret it.
All Marx does is obfuscate things like labor, commodity, capital; then makes up problems like alienation that can be manifested by some, but by no means is by all. This gets people’s emotions. Then with things like, the division labor, he obfuscates by making it seem like people become unnecessarily dependent on others. In German Ideology, his superman passage, he describes spending everyday farming all day and people EAT THAT SHIT UP. They can’t make a cell phone or a laptop or a car, they would hate that society after we’ve had a taste of coordinated mass production. Because he has used leading arguments, (like Socrates and Plato) and mischaracterizations of concepts (like Machiavelli or Steiner) in order to control them through lust and envy, people’s mind is spoiled when they come to understand the concepts (especially if they are learning them for the first time from him.)
Marx taking on philosophy, like in the bit you quoted, was little more than any of his other longstanding philosophical bitch fits that he just couldn’t resist. While that statement in and of itself may have some truth to it, it is not free itself from the realm of philosophy. Truth be told, the guy liked to use large volumes not only to promote his own ideology, but to take a pot shot or two at some Anarchists or other critics in the mean time.
Anyway, I haven’t picked up Capital in a minute so I might join along.