[Archive c 17.03.2008] Humour [Archive to 28.04.2012] - page 276
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I can't judge the verbatimness of Marx-Engels, I haven't studied it, but are you sure that you can't find the "matter is eternal" thesis if you look hard enough? Do you know everything verbatim and have you studied the same works as the author who has collected more than a ton of literature for material? And is it necessary to dig? Logically, "matter is primary", hence there was nothing before it, and no pre-cause, hence "matter is eternal", since it exists at all. Can it be interpreted this way? Quite.
And no one knows the truth.
From humour to philosophy and back again.
Marx, and even more so Engels, should not be counted among the founders of objective materialism. They are simply good political economists, like our Yegor Gaidar, and nothing more.
And I would not deduce from the thesis that "the egg is primary" that the egg is eternal. Simple: Egg - Chicken - Egg - ... etc.
What kind of opinion on architecture can someone without a residence permit have?
+100 !
1. Marx, let alone Engels, should not be counted among the founders of objective materialism.
2) They were not bad political economists, like our Yegor Gaidar, but nothing more.
1. No doubt about it.
(2) But I wouldn't judge them so easily. Gaidar may be an economist, but he can hardly be called a good one. And one can hardly call him a political economist, even at a stretch.
As for Marx and Engels, to appreciate what they did one must at least understand it. It would be good to understand how this relates to reality, where are the blunders and where are the genius discoveries, what are the limits that time imposes on the capabilities of researchers, how fundamental the blunders are and how much more can be overcome within these limits, and much more. Without all this, no evaluation is possible. One can only express one's emotional attitude to the subject. But this emotional attitude is not one's own, but is imposed by the environment, by circumstances.
That is why I do not like Nyukhtilin's style, because he does not bother to understand what people have done about whom he is judging. But at the same time, he interprets this desire to ask questions which have already been answered in a very interesting way: if he keeps asking them over and over again, the fault lies not with himself, not with his laziness or inability to understand what others have said, but with those very others who have failed to give an answer that would satisfy Nyukhtilin. That's a cool position.
Not bad at all. I won't say anything about Engels, but Marx is a political economist at least on Adam Smith's level, if not higher.
"Capital was one of the most sought-after works by economists during the Great Depression. And why? It uncovered the structure of capitalism at the time. Of course, where he went from macroeconomics to politics, he was seriously wrong. Well, who isn't?
They're not bad at all. I won't say anything about Engels, but Marx is a political economist at least on Adam Smith's level, if not higher.
Of course, where he went from macroeconomics to politics, he was seriously wrong.
In what?
In many ways. In the definition of the place and role of the proletariat, in the ideas about its dictatorship, its revolutionary nature, in the fact that a communalisation of the means of production is possible, which will ensure the socialist character of society. Here, however, we must make a reservation. Marx specifically wrote about the development of capitalism in Russia. In it, he quite rightly showed that the level of development of capitalism in Russia is still very low, and therefore a social revolution is impossible. Which was absolutely true. However, due to political circumstances, the Bolsheviks had the opportunity to take power. Which they did. Did it lead to a socialist transformation of society ? Now apparently every infant knows the answer to this question. What is the point? To the fact that neglecting science (among all other aspects) is very, very fraught.
Not Engels, but Marx is a political economist at least on Adam Smith's level, if not higher.
And I would say higher. Much higher. Smith is a brilliant economist. In fact, he is the creator of classical economic theory. He could be compared to Newton in physics. But he never got beyond economic theory. Neither did many others.
Marx made science not just political economy. In particular, he made history a science. I can imagine the smirks of many at this point, but they are unlikely to know that the leading historical school in Britain today is based on Marxism. Its coryphaeus Eric Hobsbawm became a classic in his lifetime, with his books being studied at hundreds of universities around the world, despite being a Marxist and being a member of the British Communist Party until it collapsed. His four-volume book on modern history became a bestseller.
So Marx not only created science, he created a methodology that works in many fields. And if you compare it to physics, I would put Marx next to Einstein. Everyone knows about Einstein that he is a genius. At the same time practically nobody knows his works, his ideas or, all the more so, the ways to check their veracity. But in his genius very few people doubt. Few people know about Marx's works and ideas, too. But everyone judges him, and mostly negatively. A paradox? No, ideology, manipulation of consciousness of the masses. :-)
In many ways. In defining the place and role of the proletariat, in ideas about its dictatorship, its revolutionary nature, in the fact that it was possible to socialise the means of production, which would ensure the socialist character of society. Here, however, we must make a reservation. Marx specifically wrote about the development of capitalism in Russia. In it, he quite rightly showed that the level of development of capitalism in Russia is still very low, and therefore a social revolution is impossible. Which was absolutely true. However, due to political circumstances, the Bolsheviks had the opportunity to take power. Which they did. Did it lead to a socialist transformation of society ? Now apparently every infant knows the answer to this question. What does it mean? Because neglecting science (among all other aspects) is very, very fraught.
The thesis that the Bolsheviks screwed up by not reading some paragraph of Marx is unsubstantiated.
The Bolsheviks took power and built a society no better or worse than any other.
A film about the dangers of drugs, smoking mixtures and fly agarics ))
>The question "Do you use the internet?" was answered in the affirmative by 100% of Russians... This is the result of a recent Internet survey.
was the Marxist brand of Britain's Morningstar newspaper.
At school I was forced to read...
Now, who owns it?
morningstar
Ridiculous!!!
;)
http://navalny.livejournal.com/495588.html