tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post6371936242824858900..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Dreamworks "Lincoln" and US Civil War Monetary Policymike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-46522822239824779512012-12-02T23:08:44.884-05:002012-12-02T23:08:44.884-05:00Don't confuse the view of communism that Marx ...<i>Don't confuse the view of communism that Marx and Engels held with Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism.</i><br /><br />Right. Many politicians and statesmen have reclaimed their political inspiration from Marx's writings yet held very different, sometimes diametrically opposed views.<br /><br />For instance, Germany's SPD was originally the Marxist party <i>par excellence</i> and people such as Willy Brandt or even Helmut Schmidt might consider themselves Marxist-leaning and yet had scarcely anything in common with the likes of Lenin, Stalin or Mao.<br /><br />That's why it's silly to connect Marx with historical events and deeds of the 20th Century practised under his name. Marx is responsible for his writings, not for things that happened long after his passing. <br /><br />To cite Marx as the moral author of Stalin's or Lenin's crimes is as absurd as claiming Christian philosophy as a necessary, logical antecedent of the actions of a Torquemada.Jose Guilhermehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00313496015841693181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-53289336270279084182012-12-02T22:17:07.431-05:002012-12-02T22:17:07.431-05:00Matt, the notion of the state and government as th...Matt, the notion of the state and government as the administrator of the state is based on the military on one hand, and the priesthood on the other. This is Ravi Batra's warrior class and intelligentsia. Since deepest antiquity, surplus societies have been ruled by "the palace and the temple." This is still the hierarchical institutional model. that predominated. However, as Marx & Engles point out in section one of the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie has largely replaced the warrior class and intelligentsia by eradicating feudalism and making those two clases its hirlings. Batra calls the bourgeoisie the acquisitors. Batra's laborers are the traditional slave, serfs and tenants become industrial workers bound by the need for jobs and debt in an environment in which owners ensure a buffer stock of unemployed to keep wages low.<br /><br />"Anarchism" opposes the hierarchical model of government with the consensual model in which the tribal council characteristic of pre-surplus society is the governing principle. The republic is the government of the bourgeoisies in which the minority, "men of property," can control the majority, the laborers, through representative government instead of real democracy.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58969609877307121762012-12-02T21:56:45.338-05:002012-12-02T21:56:45.338-05:00"Marx & Engels were anti-state, which the..."Marx & Engels were anti-state, which they viewed as the enforcer of rent extraction"<br /><br />Do you see this being true (state as rent 'enforcer') with the polis/nomos (ie "state") at the founding of western civilization in ancient Greece Tom?<br /><br />Or even wrt ancient Rome, if you read "The Deeds of the Devine Augustus", doesnt mention "rent" enforcement as much as absolute fiscal authority of the state and MANY fiscal transfers...<br /><br />rsp,Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-46888768214950183312012-12-02T20:44:28.484-05:002012-12-02T20:44:28.484-05:00Was Marx's view different to Engels'?
Sam...<i>Was Marx's view different to Engels'?</i><br /><br />Same. Marx & Engles did not advocate abolition of all private property, only property involved in extraction of economic rent, i.e., means of production. Means of production is agricultural land, which was worked by field laborers at the time, often land-bound serfs, and industrial capital goods like machine and factories, which are built and operated by workers. Marx and Engels argued that value comes from the workers and should belong to them directly to deal with based on consensus on the principle, from each according to ability and to each according to need. Marx & Engels were anti-state, which they viewed as the enforcer of rent extraction for the advantage of the privileged few at the expense of workers' freedom.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-66472120845835481502012-12-02T20:33:27.421-05:002012-12-02T20:33:27.421-05:00" In proportion as anarchy in social producti..." In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free."<br /><br />y,<br /><br />Sounds like Bob Roddis could agree with that.. if I am reading you right????<br /><br />rspMatt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-15193064276237065402012-12-02T20:22:02.719-05:002012-12-02T20:22:02.719-05:00Let's not forget that Lincoln was assassinated...Let's not forget that Lincoln was assassinated.<br /><br />So any future opportunities he would have had to provide influence and indirect leadership in the US after guiding the country thru the most perilous time in the then young country's history was taken from him.<br /><br />Sounds like he was an advocate for lawfully established state currency...<br /><br />rsp,Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-87574726661029651962012-12-02T20:18:15.567-05:002012-12-02T20:18:15.567-05:00Tom,
Engels had this to say about communism:
&q...Tom, <br /><br />Engels had this to say about communism:<br /><br />"The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free."<br /><br />(Socialism: Utopian or Scientific)<br /><br />Was Marx's view different to Engels'?yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55482672515823871712012-12-02T17:53:41.259-05:002012-12-02T17:53:41.259-05:00Are you implying or are you not implying that '...<i>Are you implying or are you not implying that 'communism' would be a step towards greater freedom for humanity? Difficult to know what your position is.</i><br /><br />As Marx conceived of it, communism would be universal freedom through elimination of economic rent. Don't confuse the view of communism that Marx and Engels held with Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29433168729924025182012-12-02T17:21:03.888-05:002012-12-02T17:21:03.888-05:00"explain why it matters so much if a particul..."explain why it matters so much if a particular person is a "racist".<br /><br />Is it a problem if Mr A is sexist? Possibly not, so long as he keeps it to himself and doesn't impose his views on others. Is it a problem if Mr A is the CEO of a major corporation, or a politician for example? I would have thought so. Is it a problem if Mr A's kids are brought up to be sexists? I think so. Is it a problem if Mr A's community is filled with sexists like Mr A? I'll hazard a guess and say yes.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-86534911183170350542012-12-02T17:02:10.684-05:002012-12-02T17:02:10.684-05:00"The utopian ideal of a just and fulfilled so..."The utopian ideal of a just and fulfilled society should perhaps take the old leisured aristocracy as the example - to be extended to all the classes of society, of course."<br /><br />Maybe that's why we hear a lot about the coming age of the robot slaves here...?<br /><br />I'm guessing Marx never conceived of "robot slaves"?<br /><br />yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-43715262146459779862012-12-02T17:00:25.167-05:002012-12-02T17:00:25.167-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-38595669620806190062012-12-02T15:57:02.790-05:002012-12-02T15:57:02.790-05:00In antiquity, slaves were often teachers, precepto...<i>In antiquity, slaves were often teachers, preceptors,etc of rich families. The lot of those slaves was probably better than that of say, poor Romans from the plebs.</i><br /><br />Yes, the upperclass Romans had upperclass Greek slaves as teachers preceptors and administrators.<br /><br /><i>In a sense, the old gentlemanly aristocracy of inherited wealth were the ones who came closer to living up to the full potential of humanity so cherished by Marx- in terms of leisure time and cultured interests.</i><br /><br />Yes, this was the basis of Athenian "democracy."Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70345076556922484362012-12-02T15:00:56.000-05:002012-12-02T15:00:56.000-05:00"history does have a liberal bias and the tre..."history does have a liberal bias and the trend is toward the gradual development of greater freedom for humanity as a species"<br /><br />Are you implying or are you not implying that 'communism' would be a step towards greater freedom for humanity? Difficult to know what your position is.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-13456032261169475972012-12-02T14:59:28.506-05:002012-12-02T14:59:28.506-05:00y:
Define "racist".
Then, based upon y...y:<br /><br />Define "racist".<br /><br />Then, based upon your definition, explain why it matters so much if a particular person is a "racist".Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-52459829040706150132012-12-02T14:48:13.135-05:002012-12-02T14:48:13.135-05:00"racist racist racist" (Bob)
Well, Roth..."racist racist racist" (Bob)<br /><br />Well, Rothbard and Lew Rockwell both published racist views.<br /><br />DiLorenzo, Rockwell and Woods all have links to the racist "League of the South", and have expressed sympathy and nostalgia for the Confederate, or neo-Confederate "cause".<br /><br />This isn't back in the 19th century. It's today (or in the recent past).yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-88722809997307615902012-12-02T14:37:55.913-05:002012-12-02T14:37:55.913-05:00"Lincoln was still pursuing his goal of depor..."Lincoln was still pursuing his goal of deporting all of the freed slaves up to the time of his death." (Bob)<br /><br />"After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."<br /><br />On April 11, 1865 Lincoln delivered an address in which he became the first president to advocate extending voting rights to African-Americans who fought for the Union when he stated, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." <br /><br />http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800b.htm<br />yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85906654053892378902012-12-02T14:25:31.084-05:002012-12-02T14:25:31.084-05:00Frederick Douglass
"At the unveiling of the ...Frederick Douglass<br /><br />"At the unveiling of the Emancipation Memorial in Washington's Lincoln Park, Douglass was the keynote speaker. In his speech, Douglass spoke frankly about Lincoln, noting what he perceived as both the positive and negative attributes of the late President. He called Lincoln "the white man's president" and cited his tardiness in joining the cause of emancipation. He noted that Lincoln initially opposed the expansion of slavery but did not support its elimination. But Douglass also asked, "Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word?" At this speech he also said: "Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery...."<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass#Lincoln.27s_death<br /><br />yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-47733076552115323192012-12-02T14:24:50.101-05:002012-12-02T14:24:50.101-05:00In antiquity, slaves were often teachers, precepto...In antiquity, slaves were often teachers, preceptors,etc of rich families. The lot of those slaves was probably better than that of say, poor Romans from the plebs.<br /><br />So it is definitely the case that throughout human history there were many instances where some free people lived worse than slaves. <br /><br />But of course one could argue that freedom is priceless. That it's better to be poor yet free, rather than rich and in bondage.<br /><br />And maybe this could apply to many among today's rich. Often, CEOs are totally enslaved to money, never having the time to lead normal lives. It's their wives and children who end up capturing the benefits from their efforts in terms of conspicuous consumption and leisure. <br /><br />In a sense, the old gentlemanly aristocracy of inherited wealth were the ones who came closer to living up to the full potential of humanity so cherished by Marx- in terms of leisure time and cultured interests. Today's hyperactive, angst-ridden, ill-mannered CEO class does not even come close.<br /><br />The utopian ideal of a just and fulfilled society should perhaps take the old leisured aristocracy as the example - to be extended to all the classes of society, of course.<br /><br />A great essay on this topic is Russell's "In Praise of Idleness". It's simply a shame that contemporary society refuses to provide everybody with a 4 hour workday at meaningful pay. The productive capacity is there - but our social organization and values have led us astray, towards a stressful life where some people work too much whereas others are condemned to a life of un or underemployment. <br />Jose Guilhermehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00313496015841693181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-79548970912674685022012-12-02T14:24:17.788-05:002012-12-02T14:24:17.788-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68240709651373865812012-12-02T13:50:54.424-05:002012-12-02T13:50:54.424-05:00"Of course human beings cannot ever be consid..."Of course human beings cannot ever be considered the "property" of others."<br /><br />Walter Block ("austrian", "libertarian") apparently disagrees with you on that.yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54676747370187374512012-12-02T13:48:31.756-05:002012-12-02T13:48:31.756-05:00"since "racialist science" is bogus..."since "racialist science" is bogus, there is no reason to think that any particular group or ethnicity requires any special government favors, right?"<br /><br />Depends. Can you specify what you are referring to exactly?yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233997168975370006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-77304572980824315752012-12-02T12:42:01.918-05:002012-12-02T12:42:01.918-05:00I fail to see how their lot was worse than the sla...<i> I fail to see how their lot was worse than the slaves.</i><br /><br />Of course, wage slaves are usually (but not always) better off materially than chattel slaves. However, they are worse off in that they are persuaded to choose their own slavery. This begins with the institutionalized educational process and it is embedded into cultural rituals and institutional arrangements so deeply that most never even notice it. Usually owners are smart enough to keep conditions acceptable, but a times, like now, they overreach and workers begin to wake up to their condition.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35703962556373973382012-12-02T12:36:12.166-05:002012-12-02T12:36:12.166-05:00As a person familiar with the anthropology and so...As a person familiar with the anthropology and sociology and sociology of his time, Marx recognized that social change is gradual, other than at turning point, which he traced to changes in production. Marx was also aware of Darwin and although there is no evidence of direct influence, Marx saw the theory of evolution as a confirmation in the natural science of his theory of social science.<br /><br />Marx, trained in philosophy, held that the social problem of knowledge was generally traceable to the notion of eternal ideas that provided an invariant structure governing change. He rejected that view as unscientific and contradicted by historical development.<br /><br />In is erroneously believed that Marx was "anti-capitalist" in the sense of capitalism being a "bad" system and communism being a "good" system. This is not quite the way Marx saw it. He viewed capitalism as progress over feudalism, and saw communism as the next step of historical development, as the consciousness of workers was expanded due to changing environmental conditions.<br /><br />I have no doubt that Marx was correctly in this fundamental insight although whether development will take the course as he though remains to be seen. There are many possibilities. But history does have a liberal bias and the trend is toward the gradual development of greater freedom for humanity as a species. We still have a long way to go in this regard, and the historical course is uncertain. Moreover, progress is not always linear and it occurs differently in different parts of the world. With the digital age and globalism it is bound to take a course that we cannot foresee from where we stand due to complexity and emergence, as Marx certainly could not from where he stood. But he had the outline of it right quite early on.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55037379239057489892012-12-02T12:31:13.859-05:002012-12-02T12:31:13.859-05:00As I repeat ad nauseam, laissez faire is not the s...As I repeat <i>ad nauseam</i>, laissez faire is not the same thing as crony capitalism and it is not the same thing as a "regulated" market. Progressives purposefully confuse all three distinct concepts because otherwise they would lose the argument.<br /><br />It appears to be a law of nature that business people ALWAYS seek special favors from the government while at the same time managing to escape being called welfare queens. I don't make that mistake. Business people only like "laissez faire" when it is to their advantage to do so and they are shameless about seeking special favors. The civil war was a "special favor" of the government for the northern business elite who insisted upon collecting tariffs from the southern states. READ LINCOLN'S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS: "I'll make slavery permanent but don't even think about not paying your tariffs". Later, the Federal Reserve was a government "special favor" to the banking elite. <br /><br />Slavery is and was an abomination. I assume that northern workers could leave their jobs at any time and that their children and spouses were not being sold off so that might never see them again so I fail to see how their lot was worse than the slaves.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-79126067880396124792012-12-02T12:09:26.473-05:002012-12-02T12:09:26.473-05:00And I suppose it follows that capitalism is not a ...And I suppose it follows that capitalism is not a moral improvement upon feudalism - and that Lincoln was a simply an effective politcal and war leader who promoted the change from one form of bondage into another.Jose Guilhermehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00313496015841693181noreply@blogger.com