Philosophy Now Forum

http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/ev ... nuary-2012

he seems more popular than ever

Karl Marx is an immortal figure in the history of philosophy and economics. To ask if he's "on his way back" is like asking if Aristotle or Plato or Nietzsche or Kierkgaard or any other great philosopher is "on his/hers way back". They come and they go, but they never disappear, giants like that stays mostly solid throughout the centuries.

Personally I think he's awesome in many ways, and his awesomeness is one of the reasons he has inspired so many different people to so many different ends and goals, and he keeps having a strong and lasting effect upon the world, both by those who used his works for good and those who used it for bad. Personally I think people who talk about "Lenin" or "Stalin" or "Mao" in the same sentence as "Marx" has no in-depth understanding of the legacy of Marx, and only throw out the little petty knowledge they have. There are enormous amounts of smaller intellectuals who have been inspired by Marx, and many such-called "greater" ones also. Try to search for "Marxist theorist" on wikipedia and the list is endless. Many of the smaller intellectuals took pieces with them as they shaped their own party-politics and their own new cultures of politics and as such the rocks have been rolling further and further in a ceaseless inspirational wave.

Did you know that the "Value-Added Tax" is inspired by one of Marx's theories of value? In Norway it even carries the same name, "merverdiavgift", with the word "merverdi" equalling Marx's term on how a labourer continues on being the source of value in appreciations of goods that originates from the labourer's work, the second word "avgift" meaning "tax" or "duty" (as in "duty fee").

whether or not Marx was "scientific" doesn't as much matter since he was among those who confused "proof" with science, and "initial position" with hypothesis.

However, his "Historical Materialism" has a good shape to it that says something about how something could work without really telling you anything about conditionality. That is: any true logical system needs an atomistic shape so that each piece together makes up the whole and that there's not just a whole with clouded pieces. Marx had pieces but he had little atomism, so vague pieces shaped what he liked himself calling his "science", instead of clear logical atoms.

Now when I think about it, it would be cool if somebody would really try to make such an atomistic system around the information which Marx dealt with, because if they achieved making it they should be able to see exactly how something dynamically becomes something and dynamically does not become something.

Down to the bottom, Marx was someone who inspired and explained, not convinced, people who try to convince doubt their stance, for most of his time, I hardly think Marx doubted much, besides the strategic doubt he used for his inquiries.

envy never goes out of style

-Imp

I have been censored.

tbieter wrote:I have been censored.

Me too. I've had an entire post removed, for reasons unknown.

seems admins like me better than you guys!

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:I have been censored.

Me too. I've n entie post removed, for reasns unknown.

We dont get no due process. Damn Marxist!

The Voice of Time wrote:seems admins like me better than you guys!

You mean those gay admin guys like you best?

Aren't you the lucky one?

chaz wyman wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:seems admins like me better than you guys!

You mean those gay admin guys like you best?

Aren't you the lucky one?

what's wrong with gay? One needs all the cards one can collect... don't you know, Chaz?

The Voice of Time wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:seems admins like me better than you guys!

You mean those gay admin guys like you best?

Aren't you the lucky one?

what's wrong with gay? One needs all the cards one can collect... don't you know, Chaz?

Nothing's wrong with gay. I've had my gay fan club from time to time, and had plenty of offers.
Damn shame I was born heterosexual and have had to negotiate my life with many dreadful women in my time.

maybe i should have

Embrace life – dare to be jealous!

karl marx is anti-fragile

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ant ... z2GtlhWGWx

he benefits from disorder and chaos !

JasonPalmer wrote:karl marx is anti-fragile

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ant ... z2GtlhWGWx

he benefits from disorder and chaos !

I think the thing about Marx is that he was responding to some of the worst abuses of humanity; slavery, exploitation and poverty. He had a sincere wish to invent a new economic system that would empower the disempowered, and to break the power of the aristocratic elites.
Much of his work was done, not directly but by a steady growth in left wing politics, which held the constant threat of revolution. This forced the hand of the elites to ceed power and democratic rights to an increasingly wide populace.