Kandahar said:How can you even claim Karl Marx was an "economist"? He was WRONG about virtually everything he proposed, and didn't use any empirical evidence to back his beliefs. While he might be a nice figure for your cult to rally around, he didn't know the first thing about economics. Angry rantings about how the world SHOULD work, rather than how it DOES work, are not the trademarks of economists. If Karl Marx was an economist, then Jerry Falwell is a scientist...:roll:
I also pick Adam Smith.
Karl Marx didn't call for killing at every corner, and I have never seen evidence of him hating Jews, but he was Jewish when he was growing up.128shot said:Karl marx was a violent psychopath who hated jews and called for killing at every corner.
I have no idea who the other guy is.
You have obviously not read any of Marx's works, he used considerable evidence, but because of the time they were written, he was treated as an idiot. Also the basis for much of his economics, did stem mainly from Smith, but he developed it a lot more.Kandahar said:How can you even claim Karl Marx was an "economist"? He was WRONG about virtually everything he proposed, and didn't use any empirical evidence to back his beliefs. While he might be a nice figure for your cult to rally around, he didn't know the first thing about economics. Angry rantings about how the world SHOULD work, rather than how it DOES work, are not the trademarks of economists.
Comrade Brian said:Karl Marx didn't call for killing at every corner, and I have never seen evidence of him hating Jews, but he was Jewish when he was growing up.
Keynes, is sorta the economist for liberals, he believed that capitalism couldn't sustain itself unless, there was the govt. helping businesses a lot, he figured out a solution for when the economy goes to something like the G. Depression, the New Deal was based around Keynes ideas.
Comrade Brian said:You have obviously not read any of Marx's works, he used considerable evidence, but because of the time they were written, he was treated as an idiot. Also the basis for much of his economics, did stem mainly from Smith, but he developed it a lot more.
He also was the person who had developed the business cycle the most. Alienation of worker, Smith also noted something like that, but didn't develop it as Marx did.
Marx also developed the theory of class warfare the most, and historical/dialectical materialism.
I know more of Marx than you, I still have lots to learn, but I'm still more knowledgeable in that area than most, including you.128shot said:Before you bitch about us not knowing marx maybe you should try and learn marx.
You suppose a revolution is a peaceful transition? No. He described it as a violent uprising against your master. Plain and simple.
He hated jews, and he wasn't fond of his own jewish hertiage. He was an anti semite, and he hated religion. Its all written well within his own books.
Human Action is a GOOD ****ing book (pardon my French.) It's on my shelf and I should read more of it but I haven't had the time lately.libertarian_knight said:
Yeah... my sentiments exactly. It makes an excellent bathroom book, because one can only take him in small doses, since he provides soooooooo much insight on every page.The Real McCoy said:Human Action is a GOOD ****ing book (pardon my French.) It's on my shelf and I should read more of it but I haven't had the time lately.
123 said:I just felt like thanking you for giving us this Ludwing von Mise link, theres plenty of interesting stuff to read on this website.
Unfortunately, you simplified Marx as much as you could. Marx is vast, he has a huge and not so coherent opus, so he cant be written off just like that. I for one know very little about him, but i can tell you such thing as "Marxist discourse" exist, there are many people discussing this stuff on scientific level, i know that. Maybe it is not like that in States, but in Europe, marxism is still vivid. So, to say "Marx" today its not to say communism, or revolution, or material base... etc. It has all changed and accomodated to modern ideas (again more philosopic than economic as far as i know). Many serious people, while not having much illusions, gather around the idea of more just and equal society, recognizing Marx as one of numerous inspirations and sources. "Marx" is just a name of the problem, it has little to do with historical person and him being "wrong". Firthermore, i dont see how on earth some 40s economist can be right and fully relevant today, which seems to be implied in your point about Von Mise. I believe Von Mise as well has been "obliterated" as you said.
Then again, im not sure anyone can be "obliterated" so easily. "Human History, Human Psychology, and Human Action" - these are highly discussable terms, and i dont see how come anyone would be entitled to know what our real nature is like. Thats to be re-interpreted over and over again. Besides, i dont tend to idealize anything with "human" adjective. Theres some pomposity and forced grandeur to it so i dont share such a concept. I know very little about economy, but what i know is that im unhappy and pretty much disillusioned about the whole human thing, so i hope youll understand if not appreciate my skepticism.
123 said:This is just sad, what youve written on Marx. Its not only obvious that you havent taken any time to understand the complex historical and theoretical background to the whole Marxist issue, but you also know nothing about contemporary Marxist theories and numerous left-oriented Marxist philosophers, artists, thinkers who have given enormous contribution to modern humanism.
Marx' economist theories may not be that relevant any more indeed, but essentially humanistic message of Marx still lives in his legacy.
This is coming from somebody who doesnt consider himself a Marxist.
So, sorry to say this, but youre just ignorant, arrogant twats who have very little sense of criticism. Being against Marxist conceptions (whatever these "conceptions" might be) is OK , being skeptical about it (like i am) is OK, making some intellectual jokes about occasionally naive optimism of Marxist thinkers is OK, but calling Marx a bloodthirst antisemite and so, its just under a par of any halfway decent discussion.
Since i expect nothing but more of your arrogant narrominded know-how bullshiting i believe i will sustain from replying in this topic any further. Read Althusser, Eagleton, Bloch, Lefevre, Brecht and many more, just to see Marxism is not about killing Jews and spilling blood. Moreover, in the context of this horrible capitaslim were living in, one could hint some Marxist ideas should be warmly welcome.
Finally, read Marx; dont take some out-of-context quotes, or cling to your highschool or university readings, but go back to Marx, if you want to formulate competent opinion. Just like Nietzsche and Freud, Marx is yet another serious thinker whos being unfairly misuderstood/missinterpreted, especially in the States.
finally a person who understands marx's genius. his "Das Kapital" is a work of genius and gives you a unique insight into economics. I would personally pick hayek. I haven't read up much on his work, but some of his ideas are truly enlightening (critiques of socialism, price mechanism, etc).galenrox said:I picked Adam Smith.
Both Marx and Keynes were geniuses, no denying that.
Marx was an economist, but he let idealism overtake what he knew about actual economics. Keynes's ideas have lead to many great things, but more terrible things (and namely the US has been the one nation most ****ed over by Keynes), and Adam Smith was one of the most brilliant men in the history of the world.
How the hell were Hayek and Friedman left off this though?
Unfortunatly, that book, is extremely long and hard to read. I'm still on Vol. 1 after 2 years. But most who read it would say its a work of genius.nkgupta80 said:finally a person who understands marx's genius. his "Das Kapital" is a work of genius and gives you a unique insight into economics.