[Potemkin]

Done with politics and political labels at all, in any modern sense. I am a Orthodox Christian, and I am a Man, that is all.

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."

- TS Eliot, Little Gidding

[annatar1914]

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."

- TS Eliot, Little Gidding

Well said my friend, and this is not to say I won't express my opinions here either; but I await what I see as the end of the West as we know it, the end of a thousand-year drama which is coming to a close.... Even as the world itself, and Mankind, go on.

[Potemkin]

Well said my friend, and this is not to say I won't express my opinions here either; but I await what I see as the end of the West as we know it, the end of a thousand-year drama which is coming to a close.... Even as the world itself, and Mankind, go on.

Indeed. The wheel of the taiqi continually revolves, as mighty civilisations rise and fall.... The Dao moves, yet itself remains unmoved....

And I agree with your decision to reject ideological labels as being ultimately illusory. After all, as Marx asserted, an ideology is merely an individual's set of imaginary relations with reality. Ultimately, all human thought, all meditation, is a kind of circling back on ourselves. We are who we are, and we shall always remain who we are regardless of labels or ideologies. Yet we must first lose ourselves before we can find ourselves. As Eliot implied, the ultimate purpose of all intellectual exploration is to return to ourselves, and to know ourselves for the first time. And this process of circling back on ourselves will never cease, and should never cease.

[Paradigm]

Done with politics and political labels at all, in any modern sense. I am a Orthodox Christian, and I am a Man, that is all.

I can somewhat relate. I don't really identify as an anarchist anymore, even though I still agree with a lot of its tenets. My political analysis is now more religious in nature, deriving more from the Catholic liberation theology movement than from secular ideology. I seek the Kingdom of God first and foremost, both within myself and in the world.

[annatar1914]

Thank you gentlemen, for your enlightened views. I say this as Orthodox Easter happens to fall on May 1st this year, and I don't believe in coincidence much, lol.

[Potemkin]

Thank you gentlemen, for your enlightened views. I say this as Orthodox Easter happens to fall on May 1st this year, and I don't believe in coincidence much, lol.

Here's another coincidence for you, annatar: May 1st this year will be my 51st birthday.

[annatar1914]

Here's another coincidence for you, annatar: May 1st this year will be my 51st birthday.

My birthday, turned 47, was this past thursday, gaining on you

I'm still Communist in a sense, btw, just not dogmatic in my ideology, I just know what's right and it matters little to me how someone else reaches the same conclusions as I do, just that they did.

[Potemkin]

My birthday, turned 47, was this past thursday, gaining on you

Congrats, annatar!

I'm still Communist in a sense, btw, just not dogmatic in my ideology, I just know what's right and it matters little to me how someone else reaches the same conclusions as I do, just that they did.

In my view, that's the only correct attitude to take, annatar. After all, a large part of Marx's purpose in writing Das Kapital and, in particular, The German Ideology was precisely to free people's minds from the grip of ideology. What he meant, ultimately, by his claim to have made socialism 'scientific' was that he had analysed capitalism in a non-moralistic and non-ideological manner, in the same sort of way that a scientist would analyse a complex natural mechanism. It is one of the ironies of history that in the 20th century Marxism itself became one such ideology, holding men's minds in an iron grip. By formulating scientific socialism as a rigid dogma and by imposing it on people by force, the Bolsheviks committed a grave error. They preserved the letter but killed the spirit. Without the spirit to animate the Soviet project, it became a mummified corpse. The collapse of 1991 was merely the act of burying that corpse. Yet one day the stone will move....

[annatar1914]

Congrats, annatar!

In my view, that's the only correct attitude to take, annatar. After all, a large part of Marx's purpose in writing Das Kapital and, in particular, The German Ideology was precisely to free people's minds from the grip of ideology. What he meant, ultimately, by his claim to have made socialism 'scientific' was that he had analysed capitalism in a non-moralistic and non-ideological manner, in the same sort of way that a scientist would analyse a complex natural mechanism. It is one of the ironies of history that in the 20th century Marxism itself became one such ideology, holding men's minds in an iron grip. By formulating scientific socialism as a rigid dogma and by imposing it on people by force, the Bolsheviks committed a grave error. They preserved the letter but killed the spirit. Without the spirit to animate the Soviet project, it became a mummified corpse. The collapse of 1991 was merely the act of burying that corpse. Yet one day the stone will move....

Well said. And thank you.

At the end of the day, the efforts of men may count for little, and a firm foundation can be had only in my view with a spiritual source, but for all that, nothing of it is without significance. Slavery at one time was considered good and right by good and right men, but the leaven in the dough does fill the world, and the Spirit blows where He will, and now we know that Slavery is wrong, and evil whether we are good and decent men or not.

Someday our Socio-Economic relations, our relation to Money and Property, will similarly have a Revolution. Not Evolution, for it happens quite suddenly, and Reaction stiffles the understanding best it can, by force and fraud.

[Truth To Power]

After all, a large part of Marx's purpose in writing Das Kapital and, in particular, The German Ideology was precisely to free people's minds from the grip of ideology.

Swing and a miss on that one.

What he meant, ultimately, by his claim to have made socialism 'scientific' was that he had analysed capitalism in a non-moralistic and non-ideological manner, in the same sort of way that a scientist would analyse a complex natural mechanism.

Like capitalism, socialism is inherently anti-scientific; and Marx's "analysis" is an ultra-moralistic, ultra-ideological joke, like the man himself.

It is one of the ironies of history that in the 20th century Marxism itself became one such ideology, holding men's minds in an iron grip.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Yet one day the stone will move....

It cannot move until a new generation grows up knowing that socialism and capitalism are both based on the same fundamental error: assumed moral and economic equivalence of land and capital.

[annatar1914]

TTP, you said in response to Potemkin's comment on Marx and Ideology that;

Swing and a miss on that one.

Marx applied Scientific rigor to Socialism and Anti-Capitalist critique, and only a mind set on denial mode can look at the evidence and suggest otherwise.

Like capitalism, socialism is inherently anti-scientific; and Marx's "analysis" is an ultra-moralistic, ultra-ideological joke, like the man himself.

If everything we Socialists say about Capitalism is true and it comes to pass, it may well be that we also have the solutions to the crisis as it unfolds as well.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Any Scientific theory that fits the known facts can have weird outliers that are more doctrinaire instead of active and practical, and interested in intellectual pride instead of the truth.

It cannot move until a new generation grows up knowing that socialism and capitalism are both based on the same fundamental error: assumed moral and economic equivalence of land and capital.

As an actual Real Estate Agent, I think I can safe to say that I believe that Land is the very foundation of all real Capital, with moral and economic equivalence. Land has resources, and is itself a resource, making it actual Capital. This should be self-evident, but intelligent people have a way of rationalizing away these and many other truths.

Oh, and I chose an avatar picture finally; of Marshal Zhukov, seems to fit.

[D Z]

Marx applied Scientific rigor to Socialism and Anti-Capitalist critique, and only a mind set on denial mode can look at the evidence and suggest otherwise.

He was also his own largest critic. Each volume of Kapital refuted the prior. He continually struggled with the labor theory of value and refused to abandon it in the face of clear inadequacy. At every angle he decided what he wanted his solution to be first, and then set out to prove it. That's a twisted type of science. On an actually scientific level, Bohm Bawerk and Schumpeter offered intensely logical opposition which exposed Marxist theories for what they were, inaccurate.

It cannot move until a new generation grows up knowing that socialism and capitalism are both based on the same fundamental error: assumed moral and economic equivalence of land and capital.

? TTP can you expand on that? Do you mean supporting private property rights as an economic benefit are inconsistent with with morality?

[Truth To Power]

It cannot move until a new generation grows up knowing that socialism and capitalism are both based on the same fundamental error: assumed moral and economic equivalence of land and capital.

? TTP can you expand on that? Do you mean supporting private property rights as an economic benefit are inconsistent with with morality?

I mean that private property in capital is entirely different, both morally and economically, from private property in land, and that both socialism and capitalism are at pains to obscure and deny the difference, albeit for opposite reasons. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital; capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land.

TTP, you said in response to Potemkin's comment on Marx and Ideology that;

Swing and a miss on that one.

Marx applied Scientific rigor to Socialism and Anti-Capitalist critique, and only a mind set on denial mode can look at the evidence and suggest otherwise.

No, that's just an absurd load of horse$#!+ from you. Did Marx compile and analyze any empirical data that could test his claims? Did he maintain an impartial respect for objective facts? Did he advance any falsifiable hypotheses?

Nope.

That's three strikes. He's out.

Like capitalism, socialism is inherently anti-scientific; and Marx's "analysis" is an ultra-moralistic, ultra-ideological joke, like the man himself.

If everything we Socialists say about Capitalism is true and it comes to pass, it may well be that we also have the solutions to the crisis as it unfolds as well.

No, that will never be happening, because socialism is based on the same lie as capitalism. It's like capitalism says, "A white man is better than a black man," and socialism's idea of refuting this is to say, "You are obviously wrong; a black man is therefore better than a white man." They are both making the same fundamental error -- that you can judge a man's worth by his color -- though in opposing directions and for opposite reasons.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Any Scientific theory that fits the known facts

Both of which conditions socialism doesn't satisfy...

can have weird outliers that are more doctrinaire instead of active and practical, and interested in intellectual pride instead of the truth.

It cannot move until a new generation grows up knowing that socialism and capitalism are both based on the same fundamental error: assumed moral and economic equivalence of land and capital.

As an actual Real Estate Agent, I think I can safe to say that I believe that Land is the very foundation of all real Capital, with moral and economic equivalence.

You are correct that it is safe to say you believe that. It is, however, nevertheless factually incorrect.

Land has resources, and is itself a resource, making it actual Capital.

Nonsense. At best you are trying to substitute an irrelevant accounting definition of capital -- assets allocated to generating income -- for the relevant economic one: products allocated to production.

This should be self-evident,

It's self-evidently false and absurd.

but intelligent people have a way of rationalizing away these and many other truths.

Capital can only be produced by labor. Land cannot be produced by labor.

Rationalize that away.

[AuRomin]

Capital can only be produced by labor. Land cannot be produced by labor.

Rationalize that away.

First, let's define capital.

1.Wealth in the form of money or assets, taken as a sign of the financial strength of an individual, organization, or nation, and assumed to be available for development or investment.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z4751BoAmc

Let's look at the bolded selection (as it applies to the topic more than the unbolded sections). "Wealth in the form of ... assets, taken as a sign of the financial strength". This tells me that land is most definitely capital, as it is an asset that signals financial strength (as it takes money to procure or can be sold for money).

I don't know where you get the inane belief that capital must be produced by labor. It is un-ironically humorous that you got this one wrong, as you have been bashing someone who actually tried to discover the meaning of capital. You may be thinking of a commodity, those are produced by labor and represent capital, but land is a resource with inherent value, and is therefore capital.

[D Z]

I don't know where you get the inane belief that capital must be produced by labor. It is un-ironically humorous that you got this one wrong, as you have been bashing someone who actually tried to discover the meaning of capital. You may be thinking of a commodity, those are produced by labor and represent capital, but land is a resource with inherent value, and is therefore capital.

I have to agree. I don't want to put words in TTP's mouth, but I don't think he meant capital can only be produced by labor, as much as he meant capital is used in the labor process. However the distinction he makes about the moral standing of land and other capital still seems valid since, despite terminology, all other capital excluding land does require labor.

[Truth To Power]

Capital can only be produced by labor. Land cannot be produced by labor.

Rationalize that away.

First, let's define capital.

Excellent idea!!

1.Wealth in the form of money or assets, taken as a sign of the financial strength of an individual, organization, or nation, and assumed to be available for development or investment.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z4751BoAmc

Sorry, that's the accounting definition (see the source?), not an economic definition.

I knew you'd find a way to rationalize away the difference.

Let's look at the bolded selection (as it applies to the topic more than the unbolded sections). "Wealth in the form of ... assets, taken as a sign of the financial strength". This tells me that land is most definitely capital, as it is an asset that signals financial strength (as it takes money to procure or can be sold for money).

The actual accounting definition of capital is "assets allocated to generate income." Land is certainly capital by that definition. But that is not the relevant definition.

I don't know where you get the inane belief that capital must be produced by labor.

Classical economics:

"Capital is distinct from land (or non-renewable resources) in that capital can be increased by human labor."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)

It is un-ironically humorous that you got this one wrong, as you have been bashing someone who actually tried to discover the meaning of capital.

I didn't get it wrong. You got confused.

You may be thinking of a commodity, those are produced by labor and represent capital, but land is a resource with inherent value, and is therefore capital.

In accounting. Not in economics.

I don't want to put words in TTP's mouth, but I don't think he meant capital can only be produced by labor, as much as he meant capital is used in the labor process.

No, capital in the economic sense can only be produced by labor. Neoclassical economists have tried to undermine and revise this definition for 140 years, but they have not come up with a way to do it. The Cambridge Capital Controversy of the 1950s and 1960s showed that the neoclassical view of capital was incoherent and indefensible. This did not stop the neoclassicals from continuing to use it as if nothing had happened.

However the distinction he makes about the moral standing of land and other capital still seems valid since, despite terminology, all other capital excluding land does require labor.

That's the key point: if it was already there, with no help from the owner or any previous owner, by what right does the owner stop others from using it? If it is something the owner or a previous owner created, then excluding others from it does not abrogate their rights, as it does not deprive them of anything they would otherwise have.

[annatar1914]

First, let's define capital.

Let's look at the bolded selection (as it applies to the topic more than the unbolded sections). "Wealth in the form of ... assets, taken as a sign of the financial strength". This tells me that land is most definitely capital, as it is an asset that signals financial strength (as it takes money to procure or can be sold for money).

I don't know where you get the inane belief that capital must be produced by labor. It is un-ironically humorous that you got this one wrong, as you have been bashing someone who actually tried to discover the meaning of capital. You may be thinking of a commodity, those are produced by labor and represent capital, but land is a resource with inherent value, and is therefore capital.

It's okay, AuRomin, I think our friend TTP is too wedded in his false consciousness to the present order of things, despite his closeness to the labor theory of value.

[Truth To Power]

I think our friend TTP is too wedded in his false consciousness

I am the one identifying the relevant facts of objective physical reality.

to the present order of things,

I am the one advocating a radical departure from both capitalism and socialism.

despite his closeness to the labor theory of value.

I am the one disproving the labor theory of value -- but establishing the validity of the production theory of property.

[annatar1914]

TTP, you said;

I am the one identifying the relevant facts of objective physical reality.

You've done no such thing; all you've established is that you occupy a 'Third Position' that in fact is anything but. Neither fish nor foul, it is either more Capitalist or more Socialist, and certainly not revolutionary.

I am the one advocating a radical departure from both capitalism and socialism.

There's nothing 'radical' in what you're proposing; it's been suggested or done before to various degrees, by Strasserists, National Bolsheviks, 'Conservative Revolutionaries', Fascists, the NSDAP....

The only internally consistent positions, are Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian, and Communist.

I am the one disproving the labor theory of value -- but establishing the validity of the production theory of property.

Contrary to what you were saying before, when we first got on this merry-go-round.

[AuRomin]

It's okay, AuRomin, I think our friend TTP is too wedded in his false consciousness to the present order of things, despite his closeness to the labor theory of value.

Yeah. I'm pretty done when he refutes a definition for his 'actual definition' (no source included), when that proposed definition actually helps my argument, and when he sites wikipedia and some economics conspiracy.