06-18-2014, 04:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2014, 04:47 PM by FireIceTalon.)
And, my larger point is once again dodged. I'm assuming its because you know I am right but have too much pride to come out and admit it. Is not the whole notion that the state can and/or desires to eliminate the capitalist order an fantastic claim? I see no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. Either admit I am right, or put up a compelling argument if you disagree. But quit dodging me.
I already knew Schumpter was pro-capitalist going in so I already disagreed with him, but wanted to see if there was any critiques of socialism that might be worthwhile. I skimmed parts of the introduction to get an idea of what the book was about, and then began with the prologue of the first chapter, which seemed ok. But once I got into the first chapter he instantly starts with one of the common yet fallacious and unfounded arguments made by anti-Marxists and I pretty much lost interest at that point. The minute someone uses that argument, their point has no merit in my view. He should have saved that one for towards the end, and even though I would have indeed consigned him to the dustbin anyways for using it, at least I would have had the interest to read further before stumbling upon it. But instead of an interesting argument that would make me think and want to formulate a response, all I got was another troll. Oh well. I guess I should have seen a red flag (no pun intended) when he titled the first chapter "Marx the Prophet", since Marx was not a prophet in any sense, but a social scientist and economist.
I already knew Schumpter was pro-capitalist going in so I already disagreed with him, but wanted to see if there was any critiques of socialism that might be worthwhile. I skimmed parts of the introduction to get an idea of what the book was about, and then began with the prologue of the first chapter, which seemed ok. But once I got into the first chapter he instantly starts with one of the common yet fallacious and unfounded arguments made by anti-Marxists and I pretty much lost interest at that point. The minute someone uses that argument, their point has no merit in my view. He should have saved that one for towards the end, and even though I would have indeed consigned him to the dustbin anyways for using it, at least I would have had the interest to read further before stumbling upon it. But instead of an interesting argument that would make me think and want to formulate a response, all I got was another troll. Oh well. I guess I should have seen a red flag (no pun intended) when he titled the first chapter "Marx the Prophet", since Marx was not a prophet in any sense, but a social scientist and economist.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)