[WarC]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

..... and there you have it.
The shoe fits like Cinderella's slopper.

Have you read any of Karl Marx's works? In particular, Das Kapital? Capital? It's amazingly detailed and contains the thoughts of a man who understood economics like few before or since, in my opinion. I read parts of Capital years ago in an effort to better understand Karl Marx, so as to arm myself in discussions versus socialists and anarchists when I was younger. Before the recession shook me awake and forced me to reconsider most all of my basic right-leaning political presumptions apart from foreign policy.

Marx is often berated for the one work, the "Communist Manifesto", but he had his hand and mind in many realms:

The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law (1842)
Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, 1843
On the Jewish Question, 1843
Notes on James Mill, 1844
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, 1844
The Holy Family, 1845
Theses on Feuerbach, 1845
The German Ideology, 1845
The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847
Wage-Labor and Capital, 1847
Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, 1852
Grundrisse, 1857
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859
Writings on the U.S. Civil War, 1861
Theories of Surplus Value, 3 volumes, 1862
Value, Price and Profit, 1865
Capital, Volume I, 1867
The Civil War in France, 1871
Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
Notes on Wagner, 1883
Capital, Volume II [posthumously published by Engels], 1885
Capital, Volume III [posthumously published by Engels], 1894


Karl Marx was no less than a genius and to totally disbar every one of his thoughts on the basis of the two words, "socialism" and "communism" would be to rob -ourselves- of many gifts.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by WarC

When has anyone ever changed anyones mind here?

The first rule I accept when it comes to these dialogs is that I should never expect conversion of any kind. All we can hope to do is plant some subconscious seed that may infuence under some future condition.

When has anyone ever changed anyones mind here?

It happens......you've gone socialist while I'm even agreeing with some of what Mulder now argues.....and Lanmaster has taken a different approach to the Iraq situation.

All we can hope to do is plant some subconscious seed that may infuence under some future condition.

But it usually only happens with projected honesty. Emotionalism, self interest and dogma are seldom effective.

The first rule I accept when it comes to these dialogs is

.......I don' need no stinkin' rules.....

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Stoner

It happens......you've gone socialist while I'm even agreeing with some of what Mulder now argues.....and Lanmaster has taken a different approach to the Iraq situation.

Thats true, we've all evolved in our time here.

Originally Posted by Stoner

But it usually only happens with projected honesty. Emotionalism, self interest and dogma are seldom effective.

.......I don' need no stinkin' rules.....

Many of my comments are actually driven by the desire for input. Like a feedback loop. I go in with a strong statement and argument, let it work its way through whatever discussion occurs, and then analyze the feedback. In this way this forum is a system for proofing insights. It has to pass the stink test courtesy of our many sniffers.

Its one of the reasons I totally dispise ad hominem...Its corrupts the system through influencing or depriving us of data!

Thats also a long winded way for me to say that my personal verdict is still out on the question of whether or not I am a socialist. I might propel a strong pro-labor argument and butress it with the force of language that only true emotion could provide, but hopefully not at the cost of reason.

Right now I'd just say I'm pro-labor.

[WarC]

My platform on labor right now is little different than the Republican Party platform when it was created as a pro-business, pro-industry, anti-slavery party.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by WarC

..............

Its one of the reasons I totally dispise ad hominem...Its corrupts the system through influencing or depriving us of data!
...........................

Also.....the appeal to emotion is another means of distorting 'data'.
And it's not often far from ad hominem attacks.

But 'we' all do it. It's only bad when it's used against 'us'......

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Also.....the appeal to emotion is another means of distorting 'data'.
And it's not often far from ad hominem attacks.

But 'we' all do it. It's only bad when it's used against 'us'......

I accept that all opinions and presumptions are heavily based in emotion and experience. It's just an undeniable artifact of our nature, how we learn and adapt to our environment through accumulation of experience.

However what you would call an appeal to emotion in the case of responding to ad hominem is really an appeal to reason and logic. To skip the entanglement altogether in an effort to avoid having to counteract it at all!

It is different from ad hominem in that it does not come into play, this "appeal to emotion/appeal to reason", except in -response- to the character assault...Though this appeal to emotion may influence the observer there is a definite difference insofar as when and where in an argument it occurs. Again that much is only human nature and it is up to both sides of an issue to do what it can to avoid it. Thus it falls not to the response but to the initiation that spurred it. The initiator should expect no less! In fact its usually the aim!

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by WarC

My platform on labor right now is little different than the Republican Party platform when it was created as a pro-business, pro-industry, anti-slavery party.

I don't think the Republican party has ever supported the concept of a guaranteed living wage.
That's a pretty big distinction.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by WarC

.............

However what you would call an appeal to emotion in the case of responding to ad hominem is really an appeal to reason and logic. To skip the entanglement altogether in an effort to avoid having to counteract it at all!

It is different from ad hominem in that it does not come into play, this "appeal to emotion/appeal to reason", except in -response- to the character assault...Though this appeal to emotion may influence the observer there is a definite difference insofar as when and where in an argument it occurs. Again that much is only human nature and it is up to both sides of an issue to do what it can to avoid it. Thus it falls not to the response but to the initiation that spurred it. The initiator should expect no less! In fact its usually the aim!

An appeal to emotion is a type of logical fallacy, WarC.
It's not an appeal to reason.
It typically violates logic ( reason )

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by WarC

Karl Marx was no less than a genius and to totally disbar every one of his thoughts on the basis of the two words, "socialism" and "communism" would be to rob -ourselves- of many gifts.

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by WarC

Have you read any of Karl Marx's works?

I can tick off:
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,
Theses on Feuerbach, 1845 (not too demanding as it's only a couple of pages)
The Holy Family, 1845
Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848
Capital, Volume I, 1867 ( selective reading)

I've got Grundrisse, but never read it (life's too short), and nobody beyond the odd Department of Marxist Studies has ever read volumes 2 and 3 of Capital

Karl Marx was no less than a genius and to totally disbar every one of his thoughts on the basis of the two words, "socialism" and "communism" would be to rob -ourselves- of many gifts.

Without doubt the greatest philosopher to have lived. His visions of a future utopia may now seem bizarre, but his analysis and critique of the political economy of capitalism, and preceeding modes of production has never been equalled and never will be

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

Without doubt the greatest philosopher to have lived. His visions of a future utopia may now seem bizarre, but his analysis and critique of the political economy of capitalism, and preceeding modes of production has never been equalled and never will be

As long as you believe in the fantasy of utopia and not the reality of the human mind. Capitalism is human philosophy in action, pure and simple. The regulations on capitalism are to reign in excessive greed in the bully mentality. But the "laws of supply and demand" are laws and not theories for a reason.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I don't think the Republican party has ever supported the concept of a guaranteed living wage.
That's a pretty big distinction.

Their platform was pro-labor through renunciation of slavery. Slavery in effect served as huge cheap labor source, against which the labor pool of northern industry could not compete, in the inevitable event that the south turned from an agrarian society to an industrial one. The answer was abolition. The effect was worker equalization.

Today's problems are different. Different circumstances require different actions. The underlying principle remains the same -> providing business with a strong economic foundation and driving force through a robust and hearty working/consuming class.

Just my opinion!

[WarC]

Originally Posted by Stoner

An appeal to emotion is a type of logical fallacy, WarC.
It's not an appeal to reason.
It typically violates logic ( reason )

I don't doubt that...My point is that an appeal to emotion is often a response to ad hominem. Without the one there isn't the other!

[LANMaster]

Emmanuel Kap was a real pizz ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
......



Calling Marx an economic genius is like calling Adolph Hitler a military genius.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Emmanuel Kap was a real pizz ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
......



Calling Marx an economic genius is like calling Adolph Hitler a military genius.

As a German you are now entering into a historical category with which I am very familiar.

Hitler never produced any great manual on military strategy or tactics, and often violated the wishes and suggestions of military leaders in Germany. His only direct exposure to the military was as a reservist in WW1.

On the other hand Karl Marx did a great deal of work and study in economics.

Heidegger was a genius...Although, he was also a Nazi.

I wasn't being facetious when I suggested that you might be interested in reading portions of Das Kapital because you'll quickly realize just how strong a grasp Marx actually had on economic philosophy, even if, like Heidegger, you do not agree with the politics.