Luther fomented Marxist gibberish. Lots of gibberish coming out of Germany that time period, The heralded Green Revolution comes to mind, different influences all using utopian idealism. The whole freaking planet is in the grips of all these subsets of revolution against the natural order - the order that has persisted and is proven since life began on this planet. I call it natural succession (humans have been in the que) (hahahaha!)
The planet will suffer all these idealist subsets to the logical conclusion; failure.
There definitely hasn't been a free market economy since 1913 here in the USA the borrowed funds financing 1917 in Russia. Just something I read a long time ago.
Marxists are always suffering, the ainxt in their faces are animated, doesn't matter what happens, even if they rule for a day or two.
I think O'Brien gives old Karl more credit than Karl is due. Marx was a shallow third rate materialist socio-philosopher. His appeal is to similar shallow "thinkers".
I think O'Brien sums it up best when he wrote:
"blind focus on the material world is a binding to disappointment. This fits in well as a contrast to the Biblical idea that “man does not live on bread alone”. Man must reject his self-convinced binding to the material nature ‘of things’, and accept that there are higher ideas that exist both beyond the individual and society. I believe that through the discovery of these ideas comes a clarity that cannot be found in materialistic doctrines such as Marxism".
As to the comparison to gnostics I think that is way off. Gnosticism is not one shared common belief. There was quite a bit of diversity. The concept of god being evil was not that God is evil but rather the false god of the material world (or I should say imagined material world) ...the demiurge was the baddie. And very similar to what O'Brien says .....man must reject his self convinced binding to the demiurge and accept Something Higher.
O'brien should know that REAL Marxism has never been tried before. My queer studies professor told me so. When we do it after the coming revolution, we'll do it right this time. (raises fist. pretends to be handcuffed.)
Side note: Heinrich Marx did not frequently clash with the police, quite the opposite. He had to change his surname from Levy to Marx under French occupation but could otherwise practice freely as a lawyer. When Trier become Prussian in 1816 he had to convert to Christianity to continue in his occupation. This does not appear to have been an issue for him because he saw himself firmly in the Enlightenment tradition, hence his veneration for Kant. He later headed the lawyer’s guild in Trier and got bestowed upon him the fairly senior title of Justizrat. Heinrich Marx was as establishment as they come.
I try to spread the word every time this comes up, Marx's adoption of the labor theory of value can be directly traced from Adam Smith and Ricardo. This perversion of reality is the rule in what you dub pseudoeconomics. My position is that any study of economics not based on praxeology can be roundly criticized as pseudoeconomics. The fixation on models is informative. An ever present LHB dominant attempt to elevate map over terrain.
Was Marx's god his father?
Luther fomented Marxist gibberish. Lots of gibberish coming out of Germany that time period, The heralded Green Revolution comes to mind, different influences all using utopian idealism. The whole freaking planet is in the grips of all these subsets of revolution against the natural order - the order that has persisted and is proven since life began on this planet. I call it natural succession (humans have been in the que) (hahahaha!)
The planet will suffer all these idealist subsets to the logical conclusion; failure.
There definitely hasn't been a free market economy since 1913 here in the USA the borrowed funds financing 1917 in Russia. Just something I read a long time ago.
Marxists are always suffering, the ainxt in their faces are animated, doesn't matter what happens, even if they rule for a day or two.
I think O'Brien gives old Karl more credit than Karl is due. Marx was a shallow third rate materialist socio-philosopher. His appeal is to similar shallow "thinkers".
I think O'Brien sums it up best when he wrote:
"blind focus on the material world is a binding to disappointment. This fits in well as a contrast to the Biblical idea that “man does not live on bread alone”. Man must reject his self-convinced binding to the material nature ‘of things’, and accept that there are higher ideas that exist both beyond the individual and society. I believe that through the discovery of these ideas comes a clarity that cannot be found in materialistic doctrines such as Marxism".
As to the comparison to gnostics I think that is way off. Gnosticism is not one shared common belief. There was quite a bit of diversity. The concept of god being evil was not that God is evil but rather the false god of the material world (or I should say imagined material world) ...the demiurge was the baddie. And very similar to what O'Brien says .....man must reject his self convinced binding to the demiurge and accept Something Higher.
O'brien should know that REAL Marxism has never been tried before. My queer studies professor told me so. When we do it after the coming revolution, we'll do it right this time. (raises fist. pretends to be handcuffed.)
Side note: Heinrich Marx did not frequently clash with the police, quite the opposite. He had to change his surname from Levy to Marx under French occupation but could otherwise practice freely as a lawyer. When Trier become Prussian in 1816 he had to convert to Christianity to continue in his occupation. This does not appear to have been an issue for him because he saw himself firmly in the Enlightenment tradition, hence his veneration for Kant. He later headed the lawyer’s guild in Trier and got bestowed upon him the fairly senior title of Justizrat. Heinrich Marx was as establishment as they come.
I try to spread the word every time this comes up, Marx's adoption of the labor theory of value can be directly traced from Adam Smith and Ricardo. This perversion of reality is the rule in what you dub pseudoeconomics. My position is that any study of economics not based on praxeology can be roundly criticized as pseudoeconomics. The fixation on models is informative. An ever present LHB dominant attempt to elevate map over terrain.
Nothing in the essay about the depicted hidden hand?
My guess as to the person that influenced Engels with planets as living beings would be Swedenborg in his work "Other Planets."