[Eran]

Definitely Murray Rothbard (hence my avatar).

His consistent logic is without parallel.

David Friedman deserves an honorary mention. His Machineries of Freedom first helped me understand how a civilised anarchy is possible.

Walter Block, Stephen Kinsella, Boldrin and Levine (on intellectual property) and Roderick Long (a Bleeding Heart Libertarian) are up there as well.

[mum]

I would have to say Walter Block, listening to his podcasts, which then got me on to Rothbard and other libertarian authors.

[mikema63]

The only reading on communists I've done has been here, you can hardly expect me to have encountered in much IRL, and I certainly don't have the time to read about every ideology all at once, I'm starting with what's closer to my original position, Marxists and fascists will just have to tough out my ignorance and represent your own ideologies.

And by Marx stuff I'm basically attributing to the stuff you guys advocate to Marx.

No need to get angry, I work a 60 hour week and I don't have time for studying every political thing ever.

[Jay Ranger]

Definitely Murray Rothbard (hence my avatar).

His consistent logic is without parallel.

David Friedman deserves an honorary mention. His Machineries of Freedom first helped me understand how a civilised anarchy is possible.

Walter Block, Stephen Kinsella, Boldrin and Levine (on intellectual property) and Roderick Long (a Bleeding Heart Libertarian) are up there as well.

This might sound like it's a question coming straight out of left-field, but I was wondering if you have ever read Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality?

[Eran]

No, I haven't.

Should I?

[Jay Ranger]

It's quite interesting, because it's essentially the first real critique of private property, among other things, and although his state of nature proposed doesn't quite withstand modern empirical anthropological insight, it would be genuinely interesting to see what you thought of it, given your political leanings appear to espouse private property as an integral part of human freedom.

[The Immortal Goon]

So Marx doesn't describe a proletariat revolution in which the people work for the common good and the state eventually becomes irrelevant. Okay.

I never said this, and neither did you.

He came from a family rich enough that he never had to work in his life. Despite all he had to say about what's supposedly good for the working man. I mean the one time he actually went broke he just spent all of his team reading the works of other socialists in the library.

Marx did not come from staggering wealth. He spent most of his life poor, though you're right that he was mostly an academic in that he did a lot of writing. This said, he didn't come upon his theories by trying to tell people "what's supposedly good for the working man." He used a Hegalian form of analysis to look at history and the state of material reality and analyzed how history worked. Politically, he felt that since certain patterns in history seemed to move like that of a spiral, broad trends could be anticipated. Jay Ranger is essentially correct in saying that he critiques the nature of property and perception.

The fact that Marxism's most basic premise needs to be explained like this, again, demonstrates libertarians are bravely fighting phantoms in the dark.

And by Marx stuff I'm basically attributing to the stuff you guys advocate to Marx

I honestly don't mean to be patronizing, but this is true for most people probably. Thus, when something is incorrect, it should probably be corrected by one of us.

[Soixante-Retard]

Can we please stop the bickering on Marx.

[Eran]

I will have a look.

[Rothbardian]

I never said this, and neither did you.

Marx did not come from staggering wealth. He spent most of his life poor, though you're right that he was mostly an academic in that he did a lot of writing. This said, he didn't come upon his theories by trying to tell people "what's supposedly good for the working man." He used a Hegalian form of analysis to look at history and the state of material reality and analyzed how history worked. Politically, he felt that since certain patterns in history seemed to move like that of a spiral, broad trends could be anticipated. Jay Ranger is essentially correct in saying that he critiques the nature of property and perception.

The fact that Marxism's most basic premise needs to be explained like this, again, demonstrates libertarians are bravely fighting phantoms in the dark.

I honestly don't mean to be patronizing, but this is true for most people probably. Thus, when something is incorrect, it should probably be corrected by one of us.

A prol revolution ending the government and 'the withering away of the state' are different ways of saying the same thing, I don't really understand why the nit picking is so important.

As far as I can tell, we agree that Marx argued that the state would eventually end, and we agree that he never worked in his life. So I am not sure what the phantoms comment is about. I find it interesting that so much of left wing ideology comes from the upper class, yet is supposedly intended to champion the cause of the common worker. Keynes is also guilty of this. I find this sort of holier than thou, you're too stupid to find your own way in the dark so I'll do it for you reasoning condescending as a prol. The misguided ramblings and refusal to be consistent on anything is, to me, no more than can be expected from people who are writing about things they have no direct experience of.

When did Marx ever try to run a business? He didn't. When did he ever try to live on a wage? He didn't. He had lots to say about employers taking advantage of workers from a lot of ivory tower reasoning, meanwhile he was busy taking advantage of his own maid. In my humble opinion, the communist manifesto is full of what's known in psychology as projection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

That said, I wouldn't personally have any problem with people voluntarily forming Marxist communities. None whatsoever. If that is what you want, I absolutely support your choice in such an endeavor. All I ask is that I be given the same right to choose how I live as well.

[The Immortal Goon]

As far as I can tell, we agree that Marx argued that the state would eventually end, and we agree that he never worked in his life. So I am not sure what the phantoms comment is about.

But it's precisely because you don't know what you're talking about that the facts you're trying to portray are either patently wrong or make no sense to bring up at all.

A prol revolution ending the government and 'the withering away of the state' are different ways of saying the same thing

This is not true. Ending government and, "the withering away of the state" are different. The interpretation of "the state" itself is extremely nuanced and important for interpreting Marx. Lenin goes over a few interpretations popular amongst Marxists then and now. He, of course, discredits the ones that don't agree with his analysis—but they do the same if you're interested in looking them up.

Which brings us to the importance of knowing what Marxism even is...

I find it interesting that so much of left wing ideology comes from the upper class, yet is supposedly intended to champion the cause of the common worker. Keynes is also guilty of this. I find this sort of holier than thou, you're too stupid to find your own way in the dark so I'll do it for you reasoning condescending as a prol. The misguided ramblings and refusal to be consistent on anything is, to me, no more than can be expected from people who are writing about things they have no direct experience of.

It's more interesting that you think a materialist analysis of history based upon Hegalian understanding of dialectics should have come from a steel worker, or that the fact that it didn't somehow makes it not true. Do you discount gravity because Newton didn't push a broom? Is evolution wrong because Darwin wasn't in a factory? Why should dialectic materialism somehow wrong because Marx worked with paper (for a wage most of the time) instead of planting crops?

My guess is that you think this is a slamdunk argument because you have no idea what Marxism was—and that's certainly why you don't understand the difference between the government, the state, and the process of withering away of the state. Nor, I'm sure, do you understand how to interpret history in a dialectical-materialist way.

I'm honestly not saying that to gloat, I'm saying that because your arguments make absolutely no sense because of this. Marxism, as I've mentioned, is a form of analysis. Marx proposes a way to understand property, economics, the world system, history, and sociology amongst other things. He did not draft out a constitution or iron laws. This is why Lenin (for instance) as quoted above had to defend himself against various other people using the same analysis and they were doing the same against Lenin. There was, and is, no iron law or whip that Marx passed down—no more than Newton, Copernicus, or Darwin. Just like them, Marx got some things wrong even if his system of analysis was correct.

Now, there were people that got into political power that also badly interpreted Marx or used him to justify this or that. This is no different than fascists using Darwinist tenants like "survival of the fittest," or libertarians believing in gravity. You may not agree with the end result, but that does not necessarily mean that evolution doesn't occur because a Nazi mentioned it once or that we go flying through the air because libertarians stand on their feet.

Other things you try to draw from this misunderstanding of an argument are just completely wrong:

we agree that he never worked in his life.

This is not true. He was a journalist that made a wage from writing.

And this is why I asked you to cite something to back yourself up, which you failed to do. And you're not going to do, because understanding what you're talking about would undermine the libertarian newspeak your masters try to dull people with.

[mikema63]

Who are these masters again?

I've forgotten the number I'm supposed to call for orders.

(the implication being that I don't actually take orders from someone else)

[Bounce]

It's more interesting that you think a materialist analysis of history based upon Hegalian understanding of dialectics should have come from a steel worker, or that the fact that it didn't somehow makes it not true. Do you discount gravity because Newton didn't push a broom? Is evolution wrong because Darwin wasn't in a factory? Why should dialectic materialism somehow wrong because Marx worked with paper (for a wage most of the time) instead of planting crops?

I have been marked down in an essay for not making the 'point' that Marx was bourgeois. She believed that this, somehow, discredited his whole analysis.

At 4:20 Friedman (you'd love this) summarises your view:
[youtube]Rls8H6MktrA[/youtube]

[The Immortal Goon]

I have been marked down in an essay for not making the 'point' that Marx was bourgeois. She believed that this, somehow, discredited his whole analysis.

I've been in a class where an assignment was to come up with reasons the deaths under Stalin had nothing to do with Stalin. I'm guessing you'll extend your same logic to my experience and agree that Stalin was a great leader and no death under his regime was his fault.

And, yes, I agree with Friedman that I'd let a doctor who hadn't had can we treat me for cancer.

Mike, you may not be interested in dialectics, but dialectics does not permit you to escape from its net.

[SecretSquirrel]

The writer who turned me on to liberty and free-thinking first was, without a doubt, Max Stirner. He was my first avatar when I joined PoFo years back.

The writer who proved most formative to my attitude on freedom and the State is equally unquestionably Frederic Bastiat

[Kman]

I turn myself on for freedom.

[michael3]

Leon Bloy....

He's pretty forgotten today, but had a huge impact on me at the time I read him. Someone once called him the 'Christian Neitzsche'. Nicholas Berdeiyev was influenced by him.

I consider being 'anti-bourgoise' the very definition of freedom these days, by his definition of 'Bourgoise'.

[Bounce]

I've been in a class where an assignment was to come up with reasons the deaths under Stalin had nothing to do with Stalin. I'm guessing you'll extend your same logic to my experience and agree that Stalin was a great leader and no death under his regime was his fault.

I agree with you. That's why I put 'point' in commas. I don't see what his financial position changes. I really just wanted to express my angst at loosing marks for this

[Rothbardian]

But it's precisely because you don't know what you're talking about that the facts you're trying to portray are either patently wrong or make no sense to bring up at all.

This is not true. Ending government and, "the withering away of the state" are different. The interpretation of "the state" itself is extremely nuanced and important for interpreting Marx. Lenin goes over a few interpretations popular amongst Marxists then and now. He, of course, discredits the ones that don't agree with his analysis—but they do the same if you're interested in looking them up.

Which brings us to the importance of knowing what Marxism even is...

It's more interesting that you think a materialist analysis of history based upon Hegalian understanding of dialectics should have come from a steel worker, or that the fact that it didn't somehow makes it not true. Do you discount gravity because Newton didn't push a broom? Is evolution wrong because Darwin wasn't in a factory? Why should dialectic materialism somehow wrong because Marx worked with paper (for a wage most of the time) instead of planting crops?

My guess is that you think this is a slamdunk argument because you have no idea what Marxism was—and that's certainly why you don't understand the difference between the government, the state, and the process of withering away of the state. Nor, I'm sure, do you understand how to interpret history in a dialectical-materialist way.

I'm honestly not saying that to gloat, I'm saying that because your arguments make absolutely no sense because of this. Marxism, as I've mentioned, is a form of analysis. Marx proposes a way to understand property, economics, the world system, history, and sociology amongst other things. He did not draft out a constitution or iron laws. This is why Lenin (for instance) as quoted above had to defend himself against various other people using the same analysis and they were doing the same against Lenin. There was, and is, no iron law or whip that Marx passed down—no more than Newton, Copernicus, or Darwin. Just like them, Marx got some things wrong even if his system of analysis was correct.

Now, there were people that got into political power that also badly interpreted Marx or used him to justify this or that. This is no different than fascists using Darwinist tenants like "survival of the fittest," or libertarians believing in gravity. You may not agree with the end result, but that does not necessarily mean that evolution doesn't occur because a Nazi mentioned it once or that we go flying through the air because libertarians stand on their feet.

Other things you try to draw from this misunderstanding of an argument are just completely wrong:

This is not true. He was a journalist that made a wage from writing.

And this is why I asked you to cite something to back yourself up, which you failed to do. And you're not going to do, because understanding what you're talking about would undermine the libertarian newspeak your masters try to dull people with.

Marx was indeed a journalist. He was also involved with mining, and he took part in a number of investments. Like many ardent statists, Marx was an utter failure and it was after these failures that he decided voluntary markets were unfair and predatory.

If you think I am of the opinion that discussing the man's past proves his arguments wrong, you are mistaken. Who Marx was as a person has no bearing on whether or not he was right or wrong. I do, however, feel that his background gives some indicators as to how he could manage to be so entirely wrong. He was speaking passionately of things he had no direct experience of. Marx never did a true day's work, and he never worked because his alternate was starvation.

This was a time when people were sticking their six year olds up chimneys just to survive, and here comes this man with his silver spoon to rant about the evils of profit motives and his labor theory of value. No, this doesn't mean anything Marx had to say was necessarily wrong, but at the same time, how seriously would you take a documentary about the black experience created by Mitt Romney? If he didn't even talk to any black people to make it? I mean let's face it, Marx didn't consult any of the business owners or venture capitalists he was so busy slandering. He surrounded himself by fellow socialists, and the misguided nature of their final product should be no surprise.

For anyone not aware of the degree to which Marx was wrong, please bear in mind, Marx never intended his systems to be implemented. Marxism is a scientific analysis of society and according to Marx, communism would result inevitably from capitalism. The reason so many communist revolutions turned so bloody and violent is because it became apparent that capitalism would not turn communist on its own.

You can assess the value of a scientific argument based on it's predictive accuracy and this is just one of many scientific predictions in which Marx was flat out wrong.

I feel it's unfortunate that you think I have some kind of grudge against Marx and Marxism. I don't. I don't have a problem with Marxists per se, to the extent that they acknowledge my right to choose not to partake in their desired systems. Not that it matters, but one of my best friends is a native Russian and to this day, ardent Marxist. I do, honestly, fully support you and your pursuit of your ideals. That is, again, to the extent that you grant me the same courtesy.

[Lightman]

"This was a time when people were sticking their six year olds up chimneys just to survive" and finding this morally outrageous* was wrong? What?

* Which isn't really what Marx felt about capitalism.