I'm asking you to advocate for the thinking of Karl Marx. The best you can do is retreat into a form of tangential criticism. Many an academic of postmodernist thought employs the same tactics.
"Laced with agenda" - What does that mean?
"It does not belong" - Why does it not belong?
"Clouded" - Define "clouded".
"Constipated" - now that is a subjective quasi-moralistic opinion if there ever was one. Even Koko the Gorilla was good at using intestinal metaphors.
Before you ask something of someone you might establish credibility better - when I read your comments, I think this person is muddled in their thinking.
Here is a resource for you if you want to engage Marx but cannot be arsed to read him (http://davidharvey.org/ )
Sheesh, the balls of some people. I have not read him but I have all these thoughts about him and what about this guy over here named Adam Smith. And you know, one time a friend of mine, saw his friend's cousin, who is sister to my best friend at 31 flavors (and said he was muddled). Must be serious.
Unfortunate that you attack a person who questions your "authority". That fits very well with postmodernist tactics as I see them. How do you define "credibility". Is that someone "credentialed" in Marxist Theory? What is the value of said credential?
There is much to do in life and, I choose to not invest too much time (a very limited resource) in reading a "philosopher" (Karl Marx) whose "theories" have been demonstrably proven failures by historical events. Perhaps more generously, whose theories have been misused by his disciples. As social criticism, they may be very insightful; however, as economic theories they have not done well at all. If only humans were "different".
I appreciate the link to David Harvey. Like Smith and Marx, he fits in Smith's category of "unproductive labor".
There is no attack. I am not the person you need to engage. Move along. Find someone else to "fit into your categories". Attacking you would be to go through each of your comments line by line and show the errant thinking.
What I am doing is saying now for the third time, I do not think that would be a good investment of my time or energy. But I am sure there is someone here who would love to engage you. Good luck.
You don't think teachers/educators/journalists/writers are productive at all?
Also:
>>"whose "theories" have been demonstrably proven failures by historical events. Perhaps more generously, whose theories have been misused by his disciples."<<
I agree that his futurist predictions all failed, but so did those of the US founding fathers, who believed in 100% freedom for citizens to have any sort of weaponry which exists, thinking it would be good and prevent government tyranny. They, like Marx, weren't quite sci-fi enough to see that things like nuclear arms and predator drones were coming. That's doesn't take away from Jefferson and Madison's philosophical and statecraft writings in my mind, though.
re: "misused by his disciples" - I'm pretty sure Marx would have at least spit on Lenin, and he definitely would have been out to actually murder Stalin. Stalin was not a "disciple" of Marx whatsoever. Seriously. "Soviet communism theory" started turning away from the "spirit" of Marx basically right after the 1917 revolution.
I'm not someone who self IDs as "a Marxist", tho, or even a socialist or communist or whatever. I'm just a generic leftwinger who respects the economic analysis of Marx and finds his humor funny (he was Chomsky-like in his dry, biting wit.)
"the US founding fathers, who believed in 100% freedom for citizens to have any sort of weaponry which exists, thinking it would be good and prevent government tyranny. They, like Marx, weren't quite sci-fi enough to see that things like nuclear arms and predator drones were coming."
I will quibble with you on this one. The average citizen does not have access to nuclear arms and Predator drones. Those are institutional weapons.
I'm not afraid of my neighbor's AR-15. I think the U.S. government's lack of transparency with respect to its extrajudicial assassination program (which has killed several U.S. citizens) is a deadly serious issue.
We're not really so much in disagreement. My only point was that the "founding fathers" were thinking of muskets and cannons when they wrote in that absolutist language about the second amendment. Nobody knows where they would draw the line if they were alive today.
Jefferson said some pretty extreme things. He might have been okay with a free market for dirty nukes and predator drones on Amazon, for all we know. LOL It's clear he really believed we regular citizens needed to be prepared to attempt to overthrow the government in an absolute bloodbath if necessary, tho. Dude was really hard core.
And they were very clear when they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
No sort of "yes on muskets, no on cannons" talk. Just a flat "nope on ANY infringement."
"You don't think teachers/educators/journalists/writers are productive at all?"
This, I think is an example of Smith's brilliance. He never maintained that "unproductive labor" had no value; his major point was that many professions exist only because of the surplus wealth created by productive labor. Herdsmen such as the Backhtiari don't have a lot of time for creating culture. Hunter gathers would be much the same. Permanent pre-agricultural communities with permanent settlements were few and existed only in the most salubrious of environments. Some contend that the oldest examples of pottery are to be found in Japan others now contend China.
"I agree that his futurist predictions all failed, but so did those of the US founding fathers, who believed in 100% freedom for citizens to have any sort of weaponry which exists, thinking it would be good and prevent government tyranny."
It was all about compromise and politics. The US did not develop a standing army until 1789. Even then it was not until the Civil War that the US formed anywhere near the armies of Europe. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. I also think that a very literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment could be to allow the possession of "arms", guns are not specified, only to those members of a "well-regulated" militia. What we have today is insanity. I grew up with guns and none of my family would consider today's gun culture to be anything but absurd and frankly irresponsible. Guns are not accessories like shoes of jewelry.
Oh dear me. Off topic, clouded, constipated and lacking clarity - laced with agenda and trying too hard to inject it into places it does not belong
Off topic?
I'm asking you to advocate for the thinking of Karl Marx. The best you can do is retreat into a form of tangential criticism. Many an academic of postmodernist thought employs the same tactics.
"Laced with agenda" - What does that mean?
"It does not belong" - Why does it not belong?
"Clouded" - Define "clouded".
"Constipated" - now that is a subjective quasi-moralistic opinion if there ever was one. Even Koko the Gorilla was good at using intestinal metaphors.
Find someone else to go down that path with you.
Before you ask something of someone you might establish credibility better - when I read your comments, I think this person is muddled in their thinking.
Here is a resource for you if you want to engage Marx but cannot be arsed to read him (http://davidharvey.org/ )
Sheesh, the balls of some people. I have not read him but I have all these thoughts about him and what about this guy over here named Adam Smith. And you know, one time a friend of mine, saw his friend's cousin, who is sister to my best friend at 31 flavors (and said he was muddled). Must be serious.
Unfortunate that you attack a person who questions your "authority". That fits very well with postmodernist tactics as I see them. How do you define "credibility". Is that someone "credentialed" in Marxist Theory? What is the value of said credential?
There is much to do in life and, I choose to not invest too much time (a very limited resource) in reading a "philosopher" (Karl Marx) whose "theories" have been demonstrably proven failures by historical events. Perhaps more generously, whose theories have been misused by his disciples. As social criticism, they may be very insightful; however, as economic theories they have not done well at all. If only humans were "different".
I appreciate the link to David Harvey. Like Smith and Marx, he fits in Smith's category of "unproductive labor".
There is no attack. I am not the person you need to engage. Move along. Find someone else to "fit into your categories". Attacking you would be to go through each of your comments line by line and show the errant thinking.
What I am doing is saying now for the third time, I do not think that would be a good investment of my time or energy. But I am sure there is someone here who would love to engage you. Good luck.
You don't think teachers/educators/journalists/writers are productive at all?
Also:
>>"whose "theories" have been demonstrably proven failures by historical events. Perhaps more generously, whose theories have been misused by his disciples."<<
I agree that his futurist predictions all failed, but so did those of the US founding fathers, who believed in 100% freedom for citizens to have any sort of weaponry which exists, thinking it would be good and prevent government tyranny. They, like Marx, weren't quite sci-fi enough to see that things like nuclear arms and predator drones were coming. That's doesn't take away from Jefferson and Madison's philosophical and statecraft writings in my mind, though.
re: "misused by his disciples" - I'm pretty sure Marx would have at least spit on Lenin, and he definitely would have been out to actually murder Stalin. Stalin was not a "disciple" of Marx whatsoever. Seriously. "Soviet communism theory" started turning away from the "spirit" of Marx basically right after the 1917 revolution.
I'm not someone who self IDs as "a Marxist", tho, or even a socialist or communist or whatever. I'm just a generic leftwinger who respects the economic analysis of Marx and finds his humor funny (he was Chomsky-like in his dry, biting wit.)
If anything, I think teaching as a profession is terribly undervalued in the United States.
"the US founding fathers, who believed in 100% freedom for citizens to have any sort of weaponry which exists, thinking it would be good and prevent government tyranny. They, like Marx, weren't quite sci-fi enough to see that things like nuclear arms and predator drones were coming."
I will quibble with you on this one. The average citizen does not have access to nuclear arms and Predator drones. Those are institutional weapons.
I'm not afraid of my neighbor's AR-15. I think the U.S. government's lack of transparency with respect to its extrajudicial assassination program (which has killed several U.S. citizens) is a deadly serious issue.
We're not really so much in disagreement. My only point was that the "founding fathers" were thinking of muskets and cannons when they wrote in that absolutist language about the second amendment. Nobody knows where they would draw the line if they were alive today.
Jefferson said some pretty extreme things. He might have been okay with a free market for dirty nukes and predator drones on Amazon, for all we know. LOL It's clear he really believed we regular citizens needed to be prepared to attempt to overthrow the government in an absolute bloodbath if necessary, tho. Dude was really hard core.
And they were very clear when they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
No sort of "yes on muskets, no on cannons" talk. Just a flat "nope on ANY infringement."
But they couldn't see the future.
"Dude was really hard core."
[imagines TJ in a sweaty mosh pit with spikes, yelling "NO PEACE/NO JUSTICE/FORGET THE FUTURE, IT'LL JUST CORRUPT US"]
"You don't think teachers/educators/journalists/writers are productive at all?"
This, I think is an example of Smith's brilliance. He never maintained that "unproductive labor" had no value; his major point was that many professions exist only because of the surplus wealth created by productive labor. Herdsmen such as the Backhtiari don't have a lot of time for creating culture. Hunter gathers would be much the same. Permanent pre-agricultural communities with permanent settlements were few and existed only in the most salubrious of environments. Some contend that the oldest examples of pottery are to be found in Japan others now contend China.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/06/worlds-oldest-pottery
One thing for sure, hunter gathers would be hard pressed to carry pots. Individuals with plentiful seasonal food sources could be more permanent.
"I agree that his futurist predictions all failed, but so did those of the US founding fathers, who believed in 100% freedom for citizens to have any sort of weaponry which exists, thinking it would be good and prevent government tyranny."
It was all about compromise and politics. The US did not develop a standing army until 1789. Even then it was not until the Civil War that the US formed anywhere near the armies of Europe. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. I also think that a very literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment could be to allow the possession of "arms", guns are not specified, only to those members of a "well-regulated" militia. What we have today is insanity. I grew up with guns and none of my family would consider today's gun culture to be anything but absurd and frankly irresponsible. Guns are not accessories like shoes of jewelry.