http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyqJ9wxZ9L0
I think it wasn’t posted yet.
I read some Marx…And I lost all faith in humanity once it hit me that there are people who take his ‘philosophy’ and ‘economics’ seriously…
Bring them on I say. I feel the urge to utterly destroy someone’s notions today.
From the comments:
From the comments:
haha didn’t notice that comment 
awesome.
Got to admit, the song itself is done quite well. Brought to you by the capitalistic Youtube.
Wait… did the proletariat make that digital camera possible?
Was it created in a COOP? Hmm.. how about the internet?
I’m listening to David Gordon’s lecture on epistemology, and he asked the students how a Marxist might respond to the idea that exchanges require a double inequality with respect to valuations of the exchangers.
One student replied that a Marxist might call this “mutual exploitation.” LOL!
Oh, the irony 
'I’m listening to David Gordon’s lecture on epistemology, and he asked the students how a Marxist might respond to the idea that exchanges require a double inequality with respect to valuations of the exchangers.
One student replied that a Marxist might call this “mutual exploitation.” LOL!’
I was in that lecture. I was the one who said that Marx considered the basis of all value to be labor therefor they would be equal and allow for an exchange. Then I felt like a moron because I totally forgot that Marx establishes two forms of value, use-value and the value that produces pricing. I think I made up for it in the Theory and History lecture though. I asked about how Communist sects could of been formulated during the Feudal age but when I listened to it again it sounds like I was saying Communist sex.
Youtube or it didn’t happen!
That was me, heh. I just had to comment.
The only thing wrong with Karl Marx is that his name was supposed to be Carl Marks. Just kidding, everything was wrong about him except his mane.
That’s my name on another forum. Amateur Austrian economist extrordinaire, Carl Marks!
Forgive the gravedig, but there have been replies to my comment:
Me (originalitylacking): Shortly after making this, they read Bohm-Bawerk and abandoned Marx.
AlaricxMalgraith: @originalitylacking, Austrian economics is balls. It’s subjectivism is lulzily simplistic and ignores the complex social relations that render having an economy possible in the first place.
audib13: @AlaricxMalgraith, These “Complex social relations” are largely based on individual choices and thus cannot be replicated or quanitifed to produce reliable theories. That’s why at the very base of economic thought, only the a priori can be applied and then built upon.
tmfjones: @originalitylacking who?
Me: @tmfjones Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk. Look him up on Wikipedia. Wrote extensive critiques on Marx’s theory.
Perpetuual: @originalitylacking lol… Böhm-Bawerk is a petty bourgeois economist and an utter moron. His critiques are based on fallacies and false assumptions and are nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to defend bourgeois economics.
Me: @Perpetuual Fantastic reply. My views have been changed by your superior strawman arguments.
How are people still Marxists? That literally boggles my mind. Any discussion about what people prefer to have should be evidence enough that preferences are subjective. But no, Marxists adhere to the core tenet of any authortarian ideology that states “you don’t really know what you want” (or I guess in this sense, this item is more valuable than this item no matter what your opinion is).
Blueline,
Great job with the original Bohm-Bawerk post, but how is Perpetual Fantastic making a strawman?
I figured he was a lefty (which has been confirmed given that he calls himself an anarcho-communist) due to his use of “bourgeoise.” What the heck is “bourgeoise economics” and why is Bawerk a “petty bourgeoise economist?” I saw it as an insult and a misrepresentation of Bawerk’s work. Is that not what a strawman is, or was I trigger happy with the word?
Well a strawman is an argument B attributes to A, and then refutes, but which A never offered. However, Pertual isn’t even paying BB the respect of addressing any arguments, whether real or merely alleged. He’s just indulging in the Marxist ploy of invalidating WHATEVER BB may have had to say, but just pointing to the fact that he was bourgeousie, and therefore his arguments, whatever they are, must be nothing but apologia for the interests of the capitalists.