B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 15, 11:05 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
just as he is rejected as some kind of evil diety by nitwits like you.
His real contribution to economics was that he looked at trade and
productivity statistics and used tehm as the basis of his arguments.
That was the true revolutionary development for which he deserves
credit, and the Fabian Society were his real disciples. As a prophet,
he wasn't up to much.
they were both decidedly fallible human beings.
advantage of them. That is what useful academics do, and that it what
I admire in their work. I'm probably more aware than you of the
uselessness of academic input that isn't based on real world
experience.
isn't science.
linguistics in the 1950's which revolutionsied the field, and for his
evidence-based analyses of US foreign policy. Since you don't seem to
understand what evidence involves, the may not appeal to you in the
same way.
mass murder doesn't say much about Marx, any more than the deaths in
the various wars of religion have much to do with the nature of the
religions being used to justify the violence.
This is the kind of academic point that you seem ill-equipped to
understand.
eidence?
to get rid of productivty amplifying machines because they run on
fossil fuels is a liar who is trying to claim someting that isn't true
- something that he should know isn't true.
This is bad argument in any context.
at Forth Monmouth in New Jersey in 1970, back when I had an Australian
security clearance to "most secret" - this probably isn't true. I did
apply for a couple of jobs in the US during the 1970's, but it's more
likey that my formal training - as a Ph.D. physical chemist - didn't
impress the people who were assessing the aplications.
economists I've met regard Marx and Engels as part of their academic
background, though they do know better than to mention Marx or Engels
to Americans, who have been propagandised to see them as avatars of
the anti-Christ.
sighted but actually ignorant, which is why they propose solutions
that have failed to work in the past. And I've not made any
suggestions of my own in this thread, so it would be difficult for you
to do what I say, since I'd not told you what to do, besides learning
a bit more about the subjects that you choose to pontificate about.
aren't in any position to ask, but English is my mother tongue. I did
learn some French and German during my secondary schooling in
Tasmania, and a smattering of science Russian at university, but
English is the only language I write with any competence, though my
spoken Dutch is pretty fluent.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Marx certainly is worshipped as a diety by some nitwit left-wingers,On May 14, 4:49 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 14, 7:16 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 13, 5:02 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 13, 8:20 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The argument for progressive taxation is usually put in terms of those
with the broadest shoulders carrying more of the load.
Right. That's how the Little Red Hen got a hold of all the other
animals' bread, greedy thing that she was. She had broad shoulders..
I think you are mixing your metaphors. If you want to refer to
Orwell's "Animal Farm" you had better read it first.
This falls a
long way short of Marx -
JL > Marx was kind of an idiot.
BS > The same kind of idiot as Darwin, who
BS > laid out the obvious facts that
BS > nobody had noticed before.
Your knee jerks when somebody assails Marx.
Then you compaare it to ... SCIENCE! LOL
It's a cult like religion to you.
just as he is rejected as some kind of evil diety by nitwits like you.
His real contribution to economics was that he looked at trade and
productivity statistics and used tehm as the basis of his arguments.
That was the true revolutionary development for which he deserves
credit, and the Fabian Society were his real disciples. As a prophet,
he wasn't up to much.
Hardly. They both did useful - and in fact revolutionary - work, but"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e.,
that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely
requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer."
--The Communist Manifesto
See what I mean?
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.
Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep,
a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels. Engels in turn
coasted off the family business. Marx made his living guilt-tripping
Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists
today.
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.
Marx and Engels are like deities to you!
they were both decidedly fallible human beings.
Engels worked recorded a load of real world facts, and Marx tookYou seem to prize academia over real world experience.
advantage of them. That is what useful academics do, and that it what
I admire in their work. I'm probably more aware than you of the
uselessness of academic input that isn't based on real world
experience.
Obviously not. As Popper says, if a theory can't be falsified, itNot every idea that enters the College (arena)
of thought is inherently patently true.
isn't science.
Worship is a strong word. I respect him, both for his contribution toYou worship Noam Chomsky too, don't you?
linguistics in the 1950's which revolutionsied the field, and for his
evidence-based analyses of US foreign policy. Since you don't seem to
understand what evidence involves, the may not appeal to you in the
same way.
That Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot used Marx's writings to justify"To each according to need" really means "From you to me." "Dear
Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo
P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM"
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.
Marx's moronic precepts ruined scores of countries, and killed tens
of millions, maybe hundreds.
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.
What? Your GOD didn't foresee the greedy
limitations in the real world? An ACADEMIC?? Nah.
mass murder doesn't say much about Marx, any more than the deaths in
the various wars of religion have much to do with the nature of the
religions being used to justify the violence.
This is the kind of academic point that you seem ill-equipped to
understand.
I think they are based on reliable evidence. Where's your counter-"Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean
the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form
of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no
need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a
great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying
it daily." --The Communist Manifesto
But, dim-witted Marx had it exactly bass-ackwards--industry was the
very salvation for the proletariat, pulling them up out of poverty.
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.
You think your attitudes are SCIENTIFIC FACT, right?
eidence?
No. I'm stuck on the idea that someone who accuses me of the wanting"Industry?" you ask? Productivity-amplifying machines, powered by
fossil fuels. Let's get rid of those, shall we?
Why? You do like introducing silly straw-man arguments.
Why do liberals accuse others of straw man
arguments so frequently? Kinda stuck in
a high school (ACADEMIC) debate society mode?
to get rid of productivty amplifying machines because they run on
fossil fuels is a liar who is trying to claim someting that isn't true
- something that he should know isn't true.
This is bad argument in any context.
Since I'm not a Marxist, nor anything like it - I visted US Army ECOMIt 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.
from each according to the abilities, to each
according to their needs - and is compatible with a society where some
people can afford fancier cars, bigger houses and finer wines than
their neighbours, though the rich no longer have access to the
services of a truly deprived under-class who will do almost anything
to save their kids from starvation.
Socialist countries are the ones who crush their peoples in poverty,
and whose people flee to the USA, not the reverse.
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.
You got rejected because you're a Marxist, Bill?
at Forth Monmouth in New Jersey in 1970, back when I had an Australian
security clearance to "most secret" - this probably isn't true. I did
apply for a couple of jobs in the US during the 1970's, but it's more
likey that my formal training - as a Ph.D. physical chemist - didn't
impress the people who were assessing the aplications.
So what?The INDIANS are flooding in on tricked up H1b visas
and most of them are very much CAPITALISTS!
Only from the KOOK far-right point of view. The - few - academicThis guy makes your case for you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0wwK7fggOs&NR=1
The link doesn't work for me, and if it had worked I imagine that its
content would be just as half-baked as your argument.
Pity. A conspiracy idiot. He makes your case well.
And what is the "conspiracy" to which you think I might be referring?
You right-wing nut cases
You DO realize that being a Marxist and
citing Engels places you firmly into
KOOK LEFT territory, right?
economists I've met regard Marx and Engels as part of their academic
background, though they do know better than to mention Marx or Engels
to Americans, who have been propagandised to see them as avatars of
the anti-Christ.
Not really. In Europe and Australia I'm boringly middle of the road.To you, almost EVERYBODY is relatively right wing!
Not exactly. The nitwits who are posting here aren't primarily short-It's not like Marxists are seen as main stream thought, Bill!
LOL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BS > do seem to share a number of delusions,
BS > but that can be explained without resorting
BS > to any conspiracy - simple-minded nitwits
BS > like simple solutions, and lack the historical
BS > insight to realise that these solutions
BS > haven't worked in the past and are even
BS > less likely to work now.
Translation:
Your ( ad hom) opponents are short sighted and
their solutions have failed, so we should do what YOU say.
Isn't that what that paragraph of pseudo-intellectualism said?
sighted but actually ignorant, which is why they propose solutions
that have failed to work in the past. And I've not made any
suggestions of my own in this thread, so it would be difficult for you
to do what I say, since I'd not told you what to do, besides learning
a bit more about the subjects that you choose to pontificate about.
You've just failed elementary Englsh comprehension, so you reallyYour first language IS English isn't it??
aren't in any position to ask, but English is my mother tongue. I did
learn some French and German during my secondary schooling in
Tasmania, and a smattering of science Russian at university, but
English is the only language I write with any competence, though my
spoken Dutch is pretty fluent.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen