Bull Ring Economic Theory: Tehon v Natty C

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by Natural Citizen, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,481
    Thanks Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Ratings:
    +3,725
    Tehon.

    What's gawn awn.

    You may lead.

    Sub-forum rules apply in favor of stimulating lively and functional debate.

    I'll be in and out as time permits.




    Backdrop for caual passers-by...

    Natural Citizen: Any philosophy that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation. History is ripe with replete, Tehon. Ripe indeed.

    Tehon: You don't understand Marxist theory. It's okay to admit you have never read him outside of maybe the manifesto.

    Natural Citizen: Tread lightly, Tehon.

    Tehon: Bring it!

    Natural Citizen: Okay. I'm getting ready to jump off here, though. I'll start a new thread this evening. I'll whistle for ya.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  2. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
    This is the offending statement which requires further development.
    Your claim is that Marx was a proponent of a system that gives unlimited powers to omnipotent rulers.

    Your challenge is to back that statement up with citations from Marx's own literature.

    My understanding of Marx is that he was critical of any state that was not subject to the people. In fact he made this quite clear in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. But it was by no means the only place where he elucidated these thoughts.

    Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV


    His critique is of the program put forth by the German Workers Party, a German socialist party of his day. It is a good source for understanding what Marx's ideas were in regards to the development of a socialist society. It is important to understand his critique because Marx never did develop any road map to the creation of a socialist society, despite what his detractors claim.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  3. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,481
    Thanks Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Ratings:
    +3,725
    Hi, Tehon. I'm back, sorry. Life calls, you know. How's it going.

    Anyway. I want to reserve a couple of seconds here to kind of explain the nature of the discussion, as I see it, and then we can get to it, I suppose.

    Firstly, to assume that Marx would be the center of the discussion in scope, is very shallow. Though, certainly he's an interesting character in history who deserves study, for one reason or another. I'm interested in expanding far beyond Marx, himself, as I view it as necessary in learning and discussing the contrasting economic and social theories between men of this age as well of those from days gone by. As it is, Marx was a lone theorist in a long line of many others throughout history, many of whom contrasted greatly. And many, of course, took a little from one person and added their own twist.

    I'm not really interested in left vs right or Republican vs Democrat. I think it's a laughable false paradigm.

    I'm interested in one cause. And only one. The cause of Individual liberty. Its most fundamental support being the right to the Individual's property. The right to ones property is the primary principle support for the rights to life and liberty themselves. The pursuit of happiness is its own concept, a concept that very few ever really examine. There's much to it. And that's something I'll expand on here at some point.

    Tehon, if I were to look back at the economc and social theorists of our time whom I tend to follow and view as great thinkers, people who offered the more practical economic theory, these would be men like Ludwig von Mises, F.A Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Hans F. Sennholz, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and likely a couple of others I'm forgetting here.

    Really, I suppose the reason I'm saying this is to just kind of give you a little window to look into where I'm more likely to go with this discussion. At least, from my perspective. Certainly you have your own. But I will offer and defend most agreement/disagreement from that perspective.

    ......................................................................................................................................................................


    Now, then. To your points. Marxism, in practice, did not work out well. Though, certainly one might theorize that any theory might work out or could or would prior to attempting application. Only by way of application and review does any theory become proven fruitful or destructive.

    It does not matter what Karl said. It only matters how his doctrine affected society and history.

    In reality, though, Karl had no doctrine. Not really. Though, he did contribute to existing doctrine. Karl's was a scheme, more than anything. A scheme for salvation, in his mind, and one derived from G.W.F. Hegel.

    The seeds of the doctrine were already there for Marx. To that extent it is more fair to say that Marx is often unfairly given credit for the tyrannies. But, again, those seeds were there and Marx picked up on them. I often chuckle at the very use of the term Marxism. As I said, the seeds were already planted long before Marx.


    You remember G.W.F. Hegel, right? After all, you did mention the Germans. We can expand on him, if you want. He's an interesting character. As I said, most of what Marx offered was built onthe theories of G.W.F. Hegel. Marx was blinded by Heigel. To Marx's credit, he had no idea of the inherent danger. And true student of history knows that.

    For example, Marx never offered an explanation for how communism would arise after the destruction of capitalism.

    Marx never once attempted to reveal to his followers how the state would whither away after the dictatorship of the proletariat commenced.

    I see no explanation anywhere in
    Marx's own Theory of Stages: The Withering Away of the State Under Socialism

    It was the Marxists, themselves, his followers, who merely assumed that increasing government power was the solution to liberating humanity and the way of of demonizing prices and profits.

    But...but, Tehon, those all-powerful regimes quickly became ends in themselves. Karl's words or writings have no effect on real outcomes.

    Marx was, indeed, a proponent of a system that gives unlimited powers to omnipotent rulers.

    You might recall that in 1932 the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin decreed the death penalty for any theft of state property. Millions of Ukrainians were starving due to the brutal collectivization of farms, and even children taking a few ears of corn could be shot.

    Sadly, this stuff stil lappeals to young Marxists in modern America. I don't know why.

    So many times we see them echo the line about “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

    Well, let me ask this, Tehon. Who defines ''need''? The presumably omniscient, benevolent State?

    Marxism promised to end the ''class struggle'' but did so by subjugating almost everyone to officialdom, described very well here in this piece - The New Class, by Milovan Djilas.

    Abolishing private property left people in slavery to those same government officials. And thoise same officials punished anyone who they thought failed to tow to the latest dictates. History shows us this. It shows us that Marxist regimes acted as if they were entitled to inflict unlimited delusions on their victims. And all for the good of the people, which, of course, meant the proletariats.

    Marxism promised Utopia - DIALECTICAL MARXISM: The Writings of Bertell Ollman But this was, of course, an unsecured pledge. Right? It simply sufficed to treat subjects like serfs. To forever bind them to obey and submit. Anyone who tried to escape was treated as if they were stealing government property.

    East Germans were told the Berlin Wall existed to keep fascists out. Od course, all the killings by the border guards involved East Germans heading West. That's someting that really annoys me aboiut all of the wall cheerleading in America these days. Same thing, really. And the drones eat it up like candy.

    And what about the pollution of Marxism, while I'm thinking of it's claims against capitalism poisoning people for profit.For instance - ACCORDING to Marxist theory, environmental problems cannot occur in Socialistcountries because man and nature are inherently in harmony. Unfortunately, the trees, rivers and air of Eastern Europe do not understand Marx. - The New York Times, April 26, 1987

    Pollution was massively pervasive and so long as the factories roared and steel output rose, it didn’t matter to the communists if everything else, including people, were perishing. Here's another paper about that - Environmental problems are explosive issue for East bloc

    Hck, Tehon, anyone who traveled behind the iron courtain in the 80s could see the results of Marx philosophy. An example - BUSINESS FORUM: ECONOMIC COLLAPSE; Eastern Europe, the New Third World

    And another - Orient Express to Hell

    Anyway. I'm tired of typing and looking for references for the moment. And I don't really weant to let this thread turn into a Karl Marx memorial. As I said, I'm interested in economic theory. We can talk about him for a little while if you want, though. Marx is just one person out of a whole bunch. Some bad and some brilliant.

    Sorry for any typos in there, I'm not proof reading thall of that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  4. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
    Good morning, natural citizen.
    Interesting timing as I was just typing something up. I will present it now intact as it addresses your concern about individualism. I have no problem expanding the conversation beyond Marxism but I will likely view the discussion through a Marxist analysis regardless. I will respond more thoroughly to your post after having time to digest it.
    __________________________________________
    Take your time, brother. These are complex issues we are dealing with and I know how life has a way of prioritizing things outside of one's control.

    In the meantime I will take the opportunity to highlight more of Marx's philosophy that contradicts the common misperception that haunts him.

    In the German Ideology, he discusses the individual in relation to the community, class relations and the state.

    In it he asserts that the individual can only find personal freedom in the community.
    He thus concludes that for the individual to find personal freedom, he must abolish the State.

    How is it possible for rational, thinking people to all conclude that Marx's philosophy is to give power to omnipotent rulers when a simple reading of his works exposes the lie? That it is manifest in popular thinking is in itself a testament to the truth found in Marx's philosophy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  5. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
    In the context of how we ended up here, I had no reason to think we wouldn't be discussing Marx. But that is fine, as I said I will most likely use a Marxist analysis regardless, so...... Individualism, with a primary emphasis on private property.

    Is private property not the right to exclude someone else from using an object? And does this right not in itself raise the need for government interference in our social life in order to regulate property rights?
     
  6. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
    You have yet to demonstrate this opinion. If he was a proponent of such a system then it should be easy to reference it in any one of his numerous publications.
    It is not enough to give your opinion that Stalin's policies were derived from Marxist philosophy. Everyone has an opinion. You have to show your work. Make the connection using Marxist philosophy.
    Here is another critique of the German Socialist Party's policy in which Marx emphatically denies the State's dominion over man.

    Free state — what is this?

    It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".
    Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

    Natural citizen, if you want to make a correlation between the development of the USSR and Marxism that is fine. But that is not what you are doing, you are only making accusations. Which leads me to believe what I already suspect, you have no clue. All you have are links to the opinions of others.
     
  7. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
    We know that Marx was obviously not the first in a long line of philosophers, or historians, or even economists. But he was the first economist to break capitalism down to its essence and rebuild the parts showing their relations to one another and also to apply that to the development of bourgeois society.

    Now you characterize Marx as being blinded by Hegel and claim that any true student of history knows it. But in doing so you reveal yourself as an imposter. Marx wasn't blinded by Hegel, he turned Hegel's ideas on there head. For instance, we know Marx's ideas on private property, yes? A major tenet of Marxism you would agree. So what were Hegel's ideas in relation to private property. Can you discern the difference?

    Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Property
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  8. Natural Citizen
    Offline

    Natural Citizen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,481
    Thanks Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Ratings:
    +3,725
    Hey, sorry, Tehon.

    I'd like to get an answer to my first question to my first question before we get too wordy here.

    “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

    Who, in your view, decides need in that scenario?

    I want the answer to that question out of the way. It's important.

    What say you?
     
  9. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
    The individual in need.
     
  10. Tehon
    Offline

    Tehon Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    7,201
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,540
     

Share This Page