B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 14, 7:16 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Orwell's "Animal Farm" you had better read it first.
nobody had noticed before.
Victorian England before the trade union movement got under way. Marx
was describing the way the world worked at the time when he wrote
that, based - in part - on the data that he got from Friedrich Engels,
who not only supported Marx financially, but also provided a lot of
the social statistics on which Marx based his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels
Marx's economic writings were much more evidence-based than those of
his contemporaries. If Marx is a kind of idiot, it is the kind of
idiot that we should see more often.
Your comment demonstrates that you don't understand why industrial
workes are no longer paid a bare subsistence wage, and the
contribution that Marx made to the process that changed their
condition.
academic economics, in part by exploiting statistical data about the
actual economies of the time, quite a bit of which was collected by
Engels.
important - ground-breaking - work, and Engels saw its value and
provided the financial and intellectual support that allowed Marx to
get on with it.
That you don't see its value reflects your - negligible - intellectual
status as a right-wing nitwit.
role of the party" has damaged a lot of countries, and killed a lot of
people. The problem isn't with Marxism, but the concentration of power
into the hands of an unrepresentative and irresponsible elite - the
Communist party in Stalin's Russian, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's
Cambodia killed a lot of people, but the Nazi Party in Hitler's
Germany, the Fascist parties in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain
weren't far behind, despite their violently anti-Marxist ideologies.
their workers at above subsistence levels. Sometimes they achieved
this by direct strike action, but more often far-sighted employers
anticipated trade union activism by improving conditions of work to
make the jobs of trade union recruiters more difficult, in much the
same way as Bismark invented modern universal health care as a way of
stealing votes from his socialist political rivals.
much better idea to improve industry so that the machines didn't have
to be powered by burning fossil fuels, but understanding how one might
do this requires a better grasp of technological possiblities than you
have ever demonstrated.
Forty years ago, the USA did offer a higher standard of living than
any other country in the world, but that hasn't been true for quite
some time now. It still offers respectable material prosperity, but
education and health care are both now so expensive that immigrants
from the more prosperous parts of Europe have to be confident of
getting very well paying jobs before they could contemplate making a
permanent move.
You right-wing nut cases do seem to share a number of delusions, but
that can be explained without resorting to any conspiracy - sinmple-
minded nitwits like simple solutions, and lack the historical insight
to realise that these solutions haven't worked in the past and are
even less likely to work now.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
I think you are mixing your metaphors. If you want to refer to
Orwell's "Animal Farm" you had better read it first.
The same kind of idiot as Darwin, who laid out the obvious facts that
nobody had noticed before.
That pretty much describes the state of industrial workers in
Victorian England before the trade union movement got under way. Marx
was describing the way the world worked at the time when he wrote
that, based - in part - on the data that he got from Friedrich Engels,
who not only supported Marx financially, but also provided a lot of
the social statistics on which Marx based his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels
Marx's economic writings were much more evidence-based than those of
his contemporaries. If Marx is a kind of idiot, it is the kind of
idiot that we should see more often.
Your comment demonstrates that you don't understand why industrial
workes are no longer paid a bare subsistence wage, and the
contribution that Marx made to the process that changed their
condition.
There was nothing pseudo-academic about Marx. He revolutionised
academic economics, in part by exploiting statistical data about the
actual economies of the time, quite a bit of which was collected by
Engels.
Perhaps. Marx didn't have an appealing personality. But he was doing
important - ground-breaking - work, and Engels saw its value and
provided the financial and intellectual support that allowed Marx to
get on with it.
That you don't see its value reflects your - negligible - intellectual
status as a right-wing nitwit.
The Bolshevik version of Marxism, with its emphasis on the "leading
role of the party" has damaged a lot of countries, and killed a lot of
people. The problem isn't with Marxism, but the concentration of power
into the hands of an unrepresentative and irresponsible elite - the
Communist party in Stalin's Russian, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's
Cambodia killed a lot of people, but the Nazi Party in Hitler's
Germany, the Fascist parties in Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain
weren't far behind, despite their violently anti-Marxist ideologies.
Only after the trade union movement forced industrial employers to pay
their workers at above subsistence levels. Sometimes they achieved
this by direct strike action, but more often far-sighted employers
anticipated trade union activism by improving conditions of work to
make the jobs of trade union recruiters more difficult, in much the
same way as Bismark invented modern universal health care as a way of
stealing votes from his socialist political rivals.
Why? You do like introducing silly straw-man arguments. It would be a
much better idea to improve industry so that the machines didn't have
to be powered by burning fossil fuels, but understanding how one might
do this requires a better grasp of technological possiblities than you
have ever demonstrated.
And your statistical evidence for this unlikely story is?
Forty years ago, the USA did offer a higher standard of living than
any other country in the world, but that hasn't been true for quite
some time now. It still offers respectable material prosperity, but
education and health care are both now so expensive that immigrants
from the more prosperous parts of Europe have to be confident of
getting very well paying jobs before they could contemplate making a
permanent move.
And what is the "conspiracy" to which you think I might be referring?
You right-wing nut cases do seem to share a number of delusions, but
that can be explained without resorting to any conspiracy - sinmple-
minded nitwits like simple solutions, and lack the historical insight
to realise that these solutions haven't worked in the past and are
even less likely to work now.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
