Well I don’t think he is an idiot. He is very shrewed and cunningly devised whole contradictory theories that people actually fell for.
You know, it’s pretty amazing how none of you have even read Capital, but you are willing to call him ignorant? None of you are even able to state what Marx’s relation to classical economics is. “Marx’s claims” What about Marx’s claims? He came from a school of classical economics, was incredibly well read and therefore was able to meticulously and painfully dissect capitalism as if it were an organism. He did, in fact, see at as an organism. And to say that Marxists don’t exist anymore? You are are sooo obviously speaking and thinking in a realm that excludes (and probably detests) Third World and feminist intellectual movements. Postmodernism intellectual thought is also heavily influenced my Marx, but you’re probably not familiar with any interdisciplanary academics or theorists. I implore you: get out of the narrow confines of your specialized discipline and meet the rest of the world.
I recommend the Postmodernist Marxist ethnography Made In China of the dagongmei (female peasant transient worker class in China)
A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (Marxist anthropologist geographer)
And attempt to look at Marx not as something you need to “blow out of the water” but within the framework Hegelian/Marxist thought progressions that frame materialist history as progression. We can indeed do better than capitalism. Also, look at the works of Marx as being progressive as well: all great philosophers develop their thought, and Capital is his magnum opus. Push yourselves to think.
I’m reading a pdf file I have of Das Kapital, so who’s calling who ignorant now?
Also, it’s pretty amazing when Marxist don’t even read it. I came across one who never even heard of it.
I think you’ll find most people here are very well read in Marxism. It’s why we’re posting here, after all.
It’s hard to read, but is a necessary task if it’s going to be debated. Kinda like what they teach us in school. Yet for some reason minimal and obvious standards such as that do not tend to apply in “debates” about Marx in mainstream academic culture. The Cold War, anyone?
The (sometimes self-proclaimed) opposite is evident judging from the posts in this thread.
Luckily, or for the worse, this isn’t mainstream academic culture.
Kewl. We welcome you to start a separate thread with a specific point proposed and then we can debate [8-|]
Haha, were you the one who put “lacking in” under the organisation field or was that one of the mods after you were banned from revleft? I found that hilarious.
I don’t find Hegel that difficult to understand, at least compared to other German philosophers. Heidegger on the other hand, is nearly impossible for me to understand.
Under laminustacitus’s name over there it says "Misean Restricted". What the heck is that, their gulag classification?
Eventually Austrian theory will be banned from the intellectual Marxist circles/cults.
However, what is not amazing is that a Marxist would make those generalizations although they are logical fallacies.
Yes, it’s called free market anarchism. Embrace it.
Implying we’re wrong by virtue of not having read his book…
Implying there aren’t Austrian critiques of Marx.
Implying Marx wasn’t ignorant.
He was wrong, a lot. That is all.
Implying “the rest of the world” are Marxists with valuable contributions.
Sub-implying that Marxists have valuable contributions.
The thing about the mixed economy is, that a lot of what Marx wanted has already occurred (outside of the soviet union), but not in the violent way he proposed, nor is it incredibly beneficial.
Great list guys. I heard Ralph Raico refer to the alexander gray book today.It sounded awesome then but when someone say it has left anarchists in it ,that just sold it for me.I really need to wrap my head around this stuff and the manifesto.I have read some of it,it’s soo dull.I don’t know why leftists enjoy it so much.
I think I said it before somewhere in here but maybe it was another topic but both Ralph Raico and Murray Rothbard think that Gray’s Socialist Tradition is one of the best books written on the subject. I’ve become the publisher for that book [:D] If you have any questions about Marx, just ask. I’m working my way through the first volume of Main Currents of Marxism which is an excellent book so far. Very technical but extremely informative.
Well actually what is happening is what LaSalle proposed being a social democrat. After the Industrial revolution, Marxists started realizing that Marx’s theories of the immiseration of the working class wasn’t coming about. A good lecture explaining this is David Gordon’s ‘Rise of Social Democracy’
Laughing Man, have you read Marx & Satan by Richard Wurmbrand? It seems interesting and I plan on checking it out (I believe Rothbard cited it somewhere, I think it was in Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist), I was just wondering if you ever read it and if you thought it was any good.
I do believe along with Hayek that Augusto Pinochet’s treatment of Marxism is the best answer to this mental disease known as Marxist fascism. Sometimes these communists infuriate me so much I want become a Mussolini-ite. Sorry. /rant