|
On March 04 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:
What led to the first world war that put Germany in the position of having to pay crippling reparations?
It's all the same war, just with a big interlude for the crisis to build up again. And, yes, the financial crisis preceding the Great War was caused by liberal monetary policy and the international exchange system tied to the gold standard.
The liberals wanted to pretend that economics and politics are two separate things. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that, nor should it.
The war you are referring to is economic scarcity. It isn't unique to capitalism or liberal economics. It's easy to blame capitalism when it's the only system around, and it's the only system around because it's the only one that works.
What has Marxist theory done to improve the situation? It's beautiful in an ivory tower. In practice it is hell.
|
On March 04 2013 13:44 rusedeguerre wrote:
It's beautiful in an ivory tower. In practice it is hell.
kinda like this: http://mises.org/
edit: idk man, go read some books and learn something. otherwise, you know very well that you have no right to voice your opinion, I've told you that already.
|
On March 04 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:44 rusedeguerre wrote:
It's beautiful in an ivory tower. In practice it is hell. kinda like this: http://mises.org/
Don't conlfate praxeology with liberal economics. You are grasping at straw men.
|
On March 04 2013 13:46 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:On March 04 2013 13:44 rusedeguerre wrote:
It's beautiful in an ivory tower. In practice it is hell. kinda like this: http://mises.org/ Don't conlfate praxeology with liberal economics. You are grasping at straw men.
so are you, obviously. that's my point.
|
On March 04 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:What led to the first world war that put Germany in the position of having to pay crippling reparations? It's all the same war, just with a big interlude for the crisis to build up again. And, yes, the financial crisis preceding the Great War was caused by liberal monetary policy and the international exchange system tied to the gold standard. The liberals wanted to pretend that economics and politics are two separate things. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that, nor should it. Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:39 rusedeguerre wrote:
since you've made blaming capitalism your occupation. but why would I do this, if it has brought me so much material wealth? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Y'all got pretty much two options 1) sam is crazy 2) sam is on to something. pick one, I don't care which.
Could be both. What happened to thinking crazily to deal with craziness?
|
On March 04 2013 13:47 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:46 rusedeguerre wrote:On March 04 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:On March 04 2013 13:44 rusedeguerre wrote:
It's beautiful in an ivory tower. In practice it is hell. kinda like this: http://mises.org/ Don't conlfate praxeology with liberal economics. You are grasping at straw men. so are you, obviously. that's my point.
So I am still waiting, tell me what Marxism has contributed to economics in practical terms. And Keynes is part of the liberal tradition, so attacking failed monetarist policy isn't an out.
|
Well, now that you mention it, Keynes is something that Marxism has contributed to economics in practical terms. Keynes is just Marx repackaged for bourgeois sensibilities, and with the possibility of any permanent solution to the crisis-tendencies of capitalism abandoned.
edit:
On March 04 2013 13:49 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:What led to the first world war that put Germany in the position of having to pay crippling reparations? It's all the same war, just with a big interlude for the crisis to build up again. And, yes, the financial crisis preceding the Great War was caused by liberal monetary policy and the international exchange system tied to the gold standard. The liberals wanted to pretend that economics and politics are two separate things. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that, nor should it. On March 04 2013 13:39 rusedeguerre wrote:
since you've made blaming capitalism your occupation. but why would I do this, if it has brought me so much material wealth? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Y'all got pretty much two options 1) sam is crazy 2) sam is on to something. pick one, I don't care which. Could be both. What happened to thinking crazily to deal with craziness?
spoken like a true hegelian. you're learning fast, grasshopper
|
No, sorry... you do not get to claim Keynes for Marxism. That is way off. Keynes refined capitalism, he didn't refute it.
"If Adam Smith is the quintessential classical liberal, the twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas paved the way for massive public works projects and countercyclical economic policies meant to soften the ups and downs of the business cycle, best represents the modern version."
-Alan Wolfe, The Future of Liberalism. p. 13.
"Modern liberalism was the dominant ideology in Western nations from the end of World War II until the early 1970s. Its appeal stemmed from not only the success of Keynesian economics in maintaining prosperity during that period, but also from the postwar revulsion towards any pure form of ideology."
-Barry Stewart Clark, Political economy: a comparative approach. p. 101.
|
Yes I do. Keynes "refined capitalism" by proposing a solution to the general glut tendency first adequately theorized by Marx. there is no difference between a Keynesian crisis of effective demand and Marxian crisis of overproduction, they are just theorized from different direction. Keynes lifted the idea directly from Marx.
Marxian political economy is not supposed to tell you how to run a capitalist economy, that's not the point of what it's for. Criticizing Marxian political economy for not telling you how to run a capitalist economy "in practical terms" is like criticizing metaphysics for not telling you how a particle accelerator works. It's not about that.
edit: your quotes don't help even a little bit. they just say "there is such a thing as Keynesianism."
edit: we can also note, while we're on the subject, that Adam Smith lifted much of HIS political economy from 13th century Persian thinkers, who conceived of the question of what a market economy is in much different moral-philosophical terms than did Smith. Smith's famous line about the dogs and the bone is lifted directly from these earlier texts, same with his bit about the pin factory.
|
On March 04 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes I do. Keynes "refined capitalism" by proposing a solution to the general glut tendency first adequately theorized by Marx. there is no difference between a Keynesian crisis of effective demand and Marxian crisis of overproduction, they are just theorized from different direction. Keynes lifted the idea directly from Marx.
Marxian political economy is not supposed to tell you how to run a capitalist economy, that's not the point of what it's for. Criticizing Marxian political economy for not telling you how to run a capitalist economy "in practical terms" is like criticizing metaphysics for not telling you how a particle accelerator works. It's not about that.
edit: your quotes don't help even a little bit. they just say "there is such a thing as Keynesianism."
There is no Marxist economy "in practical terms." And metaphysics is equally useless, so the analogy is apt.
|
Marx wasn't interested in designing an economics of communism. He was interested in theorizing the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism IS Marxist economics.
Figuring out what to do after the revolution is our cross to bear - the Old Man doesn't say anything about it. And if you understand at all what the Old Man was saying, he would tell you not to listen to him anyway, if he tried to tell you what to do!
|
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman.
|
Figuring out what to do after the revolution
I hear shallow graves are useful in such situations...
Permit me some hyperbole. 
On March 04 2013 14:14 Zaros wrote:
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman.
Only if you use liberal as the modern adjective. I was using it as a noun, referencing liberalism.
|
On March 04 2013 14:14 rusedeguerre wrote:I hear shallow graves are useful in such situations... Permit me some hyperbole.
you're nothing BUT hyperbole, I'm afraid
|
On March 04 2013 14:14 Zaros wrote:
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman.
The language is fucked up beyond repair at this point. 
|
On March 04 2013 14:22 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 14:14 Zaros wrote:
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman. The language is fucked up beyond repair at this point.
indeed, liberal economists need a new word maybe they should revive whiggism.
|
United States41961 Posts
On March 04 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:What led to the first world war that put Germany in the position of having to pay crippling reparations? It's all the same war, just with a big interlude for the crisis to build up again. And, yes, the financial crisis preceding the Great War was caused by liberal monetary policy and the international exchange system tied to the gold standard. The liberals wanted to pretend that economics and politics are two separate things. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that, nor should it. Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 13:39 rusedeguerre wrote:
since you've made blaming capitalism your occupation. but why would I do this, if it has brought me so much material wealth? That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Y'all got pretty much two options 1) sam is crazy 2) sam is on to something. pick one, I don't care which.
WWI happened for social, technological and ideological reasons, not economic. It happened largely because none of the people in power thought it'd be a good idea for it not to happen. It profited no-one. If any of the nations involved had any idea what they were doing they would have avoided it but the reality of the war they were starting was completely unknown to the men behind it. WWI marked the end of the 19th Century era of unrestricted liberalism (classical liberalism, not 'murcan liberals), the government seizure of power necessary to wage a total war was never really relaxed and the suffering of the working classes in a war in which they had no stake in toppled one society entirely and fundamentally changed all of them. The nations of Europe were changing, growing and advancing while the political structures with which they were governed became increasingly unrepresentative, antiquated and unfit for purpose. It's not that there wasn't political evolution, it's that society was changing at a rate that outpaced it. Those in power did not understand that it would be a total war of attrition, nor that the working classes would revolt at being sacrificed for God and country. International Marxism was the only real victor of the Great War as, across Europe, the veterans realised they had more in common with each other than with their officers who led them in a war to defend ideals that were irrelevant to them.
|
On March 04 2013 14:25 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 14:22 Shiragaku wrote:On March 04 2013 14:14 Zaros wrote:
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman. The language is fucked up beyond repair at this point. indeed, liberal economists need a new word maybe they should revive whiggism.
And then we will wait for the word neo-whiggism to be fucked up beyond repair 
If you want to see some real ideologies to go complete shit, check out National Communism, the Black Bloc, and post-Stalin revisionism. I guess you can include Stalinism, Juche, and Dengism in the mix as well. Holy shit does ideology have a way of fucking itself up.
|
On March 04 2013 14:29 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 14:25 Zaros wrote:On March 04 2013 14:22 Shiragaku wrote:On March 04 2013 14:14 Zaros wrote:
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman. The language is fucked up beyond repair at this point. indeed, liberal economists need a new word maybe they should revive whiggism. And then we will wait for the word neo-whiggism to be fucked up beyond repair If you want to see some real ideologies to go complete shit, check out National Communism, the Black Bloc, and post-Stalin revisionism. I guess you can include Stalinism, Juche, and Dengism in the mix as well. Holy shit does ideology have a way of fucking itself up.
I guess, i still think they need a word for themselves libertarian has been stolen by ultra conservatives, liberal is confused anywhere you go same with classical liberal and Whig is unclear to anyone who doesn't know history.
|
On March 04 2013 14:39 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 14:29 Shiragaku wrote:On March 04 2013 14:25 Zaros wrote:On March 04 2013 14:22 Shiragaku wrote:On March 04 2013 14:14 Zaros wrote:
I dont think you can really call Keynes a liberal economist in the English sense of the word, liberal economists are more like hayek, mises maybe freidman. The language is fucked up beyond repair at this point. indeed, liberal economists need a new word maybe they should revive whiggism. And then we will wait for the word neo-whiggism to be fucked up beyond repair If you want to see some real ideologies to go complete shit, check out National Communism, the Black Bloc, and post-Stalin revisionism. I guess you can include Stalinism, Juche, and Dengism in the mix as well. Holy shit does ideology have a way of fucking itself up. I guess, i still think they need a word for themselves libertarian has been stolen by ultra conservatives, liberal is confused anywhere you go same with classical liberal and Whig is unclear to anyone who doesn't know history.
And many orthodox Bakunin anarchists and Anton Pannekoek communists are upset that liberals stole the word libertarian from them as well. Oh the territorial war for words has been quite fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
