Bull Ring Economic Theory: Tehon v Natty C

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[Tehon]

This is the offending statement which requires further development.

To Marx's credit, I doubt that he ever intended for his docrtrines to bring all of the tyranny and death to the hundreds of millions of its victims. But he was certainly naive to expect good results from a system which gives unlimited power to omnipotent rulers.

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.

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible.

He thus concludes that for the individual to find personal freedom, he must abolish the State.

Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow 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.

 

[Tehon]

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.

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?

 

[Tehon]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Tehon]

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.

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?

A person has as his substantive end the right of putting his will into any and every thing and thereby making it his, because it has no such end in itself and derives its destiny and soul from his will. This is the absolute right of appropriation which man has over all 'things'.

Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Property

 

[Natural Citizen]

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?

 

[Tehon]

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?

The individual in need.

 

[Tehon]

 

[Natural Citizen]

The individual in need.

Yes, there are minimal, useless, rights that are permitted.

You can own property, for instance. That is until the collective needs that property. Right? To that extent, it is the collective that decides. The state, to be clear.


Anyway. I've grown disinterested in this thread. The fact of the matter is I'm tired of having the same discussion over and over again. I've done it a hundred times, Tehon. The only reason I started it was because you were brave enough to tell me to bring it. I found that respectable because nobody ever has the stones to debate me one on one. Not unless they're drunk, anyway. But if you want, we can keep going. I hardly ever check this area, though. Not unless you quote me and I see the notification.

Plus, you know, I actually like you, Tehin. Either that, or I destest the counterfeit nature of modern conservatism more. I'm leaning toward the latter. Maybe a mix of both. You're more respectful than many of them, that's for sure.

I see so many people operating under the false perception that they are conservative who do more in service to socialism than actual socilists do. It seems to me that we're becoming socialist, not because of friends who identify as socialist, but becoming socialist at the hands of our friends who identify as conservative. But we wouldn't know it to hear them tell it.


In the mean time, I'm going to start a new thread this evening. I'm gonna call it The Road To Socialism. I want you oin it, if you could. And bring your friends. Your socialist friends. I donlt want to debate them. Or you. I want your help for something. I want to light these so-called conservative fools up around here. I want to demonstrate preceisely who it is that's bring socialism to America. It's not the people who identify as socialist. Not at all.It seems to me that the people screaming against socialism are the ones bringing it.

I'm still your political enemy. Though, not your personal enemy. But even political enemies can work together. I want to light em up, Tehon, these socialists who are so foolish to think they're operating in a conservative manner. Like the fourth of July.


If you want to keep going here, fine, just respond to the first couple of sentences in this posting ansd we can keep going.

 

[Tehon]

The individual in need.

Yes, there are minimal, useless, rights that are permitted.

You can own property, for instance. That is until the collective needs that property. Right? To that extent, it is the collective that decides. The state, to be clear.


Anyway. I've grown disinterested in this thread. The fact of the matter is I'm tired of having the same discussion over and over again. I've done it a hundred times, Tehon. The only reason I started it was because you were brave enough to tell me to bring it. I found that respectable because nobody ever has the stones to debate me one on one. Not unless they're drunk, anyway. But if you want, we can keep going. I hardly ever check this area, though. Not unless you quote me and I see the notification.

Plus, you know, I actually like you, Tehin. Either that, or I destest the counterfeit nature of modern conservatism more. I'm leaning toward the latter. Maybe a mix of both. You're more respectful than many of them, that's for sure.

I see so many people operating under the false perception that they are conservative who do more in service to socialism than actual socilists do. It seems to me that we're becoming socialist, not because of friends who identify as socialist, but becoming socialist at the hands of our friends who identify as conservative. But we wouldn't know it to hear them tell it.


In the mean time, I'm going to start a new thread this evening. I'm gonna call it The Road To Socialism. I want you oin it, if you could. And bring your friends. Your socialist friends. I donlt want to debate them. Or you. I want your help for something. I want to light these so-called conservative fools up around here. I want to demonstrate preceisely who it is that's bring socialism to America. It's not the people who identify as socialist. Not at all.It seems to me that the people screaming against socialism are the ones bringing it.

I'm still your political enemy. Though, not your personal enemy. But even political enemies can work together. I want to light em up, Tehon, these socialists who are so foolish to think they're operating in a conservative manner. Like the fourth of July.


If you want to keep going here, fine, just respond to the first couple of sentences in this posting ansd we can keep going.

There is no need to continue, Natural Citizen. We're cool. I appreciate you honoring your word by starting this thread. Until we meet again.