[QatzelOk]

RE: GERMAN THINKERS ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

Correction: THINKERS ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

Which "thinkers" inspired the British to genocide 150 nations?

These "thinkers" (or non-thinkers) are the ones who have proven the most dangerous in history.

Germans make great scapegoats though.

[Potemkin]

Which "thinkers" inspired the British to genocide 150 nations?

These "thinkers" (or non-thinkers) are the ones who have proven the most dangerous in history.

Germans make great scapegoats though.

Some guy in a wig who's printed on the banknotes. Most influential British guy who's ever lived. Lol.

[Politics_Observer]

@Atlantis

Marx was a great economist, only American anti-communists would consider him a dangerous thinker today.

Your claim that Marx was an economist is demonstrably false. We can prove your claim as false by looking at authoritative sources. For example, PBS.org states:

Karl Marx was a German political philosopher and revolutionist who, with Friedrich Engels, cofounded scientific socialism (modern communism), and, became one of the most influential thinkers of all time.

Marx was born in Trier and educated at the universities of Bonn, Berlin, and Jena. In 1842, shortly after contributing his first article to the Cologne newspaper Rheinische Zeitung, Marx became editor of the paper. His writings in the Rheinische Zeitung criticizing contemporary political and social conditions embroiled him in controversy with the authorities, and in 1843 Marx was compelled to resign his editorial post, and soon afterward the Rheinische Zeitung was forced to discontinue publication.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheig ... lmarx.html

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy prefers to refer to him more as a revolutionary and political activist than a philosopher. However, this source states he was trained as a philosopher.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is certainly hard to find many thinkers who can be said to have had comparable influence in the creation of the modern world. However, Marx was trained as a philosopher, and although often portrayed as moving away from philosophy in his mid-twenties—perhaps towards history and the social sciences—there are many points of contact with modern philosophical debates throughout his writings.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

Thus, when rating your claim that Marx was an economist, it would appear based on the evidence from authoritative sources that this claim is false. It would be more accurate to make the claim that Marx was a revolutionary, political activist and perhaps somewhat of a political philosopher in his critique of capitalism and the power structures surrounding capitalism given the evidence available. Marx's ideas on the economics of abolishing private property and instead having a centrally planned economy has not worked throughout history. Given that is the case, we can say that he was no economist given that his ideas on abolishing private property and setting up a centrally planned economy have yet to work and to stand the test of time. The notion of him being an economist go out the window especially when you consider that his ideas on economics when put into practice in reality prove not to work or to be feasible for the long term.

[late]

Your claim that Marx was an economist is demonstrably false.

"It has become fashionable to think that Karl Marx was not mainly an economist but instead integrated various disciplines—economics, sociology, political science, history, and so on—into his philosophy. But Mark Blaug, a noted historian of economic thought, points out that Marx wrote “no more than a dozen pages on the concept of social class, the theory of the state, and the materialist conception of history” while he wrote “literally 10,000 pages on economics pure and simple.”

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html

[Politics_Observer]

@late

Your source is noted however, the premise of the claim that Karl Marx is an economist is fallacious. What he taught went against everything that modern economics advocates. Plus, you can't say he made any sort of contributions to economics when his ideas that went against everything about modern economics when put into practice in the real world didn't work and couldn't sustain itself over the long term. Capitalism HAS been able to sustain itself over the long term unlike Marxian economics. Now, if his ideas actually worked when put into practice in the real world, you might have some validity to the premise of your claim.

[late]

@late

Your source is noted however, the premise of the claim that Karl Marx is an economist is fallacious. What he taught went against everything that modern economics advocates. Plus, you can't say he made any sort of contributions to economics when his ideas that went against everything about modern economics when put into practice in the real world didn't work and couldn't sustain itself over the long term. Capitalism HAS been able to sustain itself over the long term unlike Marxian economics. Now, if his ideas actually worked when put into practice in the real world, you might have some validity to the premise of your claim.

Sigh.

He was an economist. That things didn't work out doesn't change that.

[Politics_Observer]

@late

Sigh.

He was an economist. That things didn't work out doesn't change that.

But you must have some verifiable facts to back up your claim that you can demonstrate to others so we can accept your claim as knowledge and "knowing" it. You are skeptical of the claim that has some validity to it's premise that Marx wasn't an economist. When you make a counter-claim, if you wish for it to be deemed as true, you must have facts that support such a claim. You can't just go out and make any kind of claim and expect it to be accepted as true if you can't bring facts to bear to demonstrate the validity and truthfulness of your claim.

[late]

@late



But you must have some verifiable facts to back up your claim that you can demonstrate to others so we can accept your claim as knowledge and "knowing" it. You are skeptical of the claim that has some validity to it's premise that Marx wasn't an economist. When you make a counter-claim, if you wish for it to be deemed as true, you must have facts that support such a claim. You can't just go out and make any kind of claim and expect it to be accepted as true if you can't bring facts to bear to demonstrate the validity and truthfulness of your claim.

You are trying to rewrite history.

It makes no sense to say he wasn't an economist, when he was. It's that simple.

You can say he was a bad economist.

[Politics_Observer]

@late

You are trying to rewrite history.

It makes no sense to say he wasn't an economist, when he was. It's that simple.

You can say he was a bad economist.

Do you have evidence he graduated with an economics degree? My research indicates he studied law but the vast majority of his studies focused on Philosophy. Given the present evidence I have, I would say we can demonstrably prove and assert as true that Karl Marx was a political activist, revolutionary and philosopher.

I am open to changing my position if you can present evidence that he was formally educated in economics and earned an economics degree as part of his education. I would have to change my position to asserting that Karl Marx was an economist but a bad economist. However, I see no evidence that he received a serious education in economics. But if you can present that evidence that I wasn't able to find, I will change my position. I wouldn't say that Karl Marx was a lawyer despite receiving some education in law because to the best of my knowledge he never graduated law school.

I will say, that Karl Marx's assertions on capitalism was correct, but the historical evidence shows that his assertions on communism are wrong. Thus, the notion that Karl Marx was right about capitalism but wrong about communism. To date, despite all it's flaws, capitalism appears to be the only economic system that works. However, if capitalism remains unregulated, it can be very destructive.

[Potemkin]

@Politics_Observer - they didn't do economics degrees in Marx's time. Adam Smith didn't have a degree in economics either, yet he founded classical economics.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

they didn't do economics degrees in Marx's time. Adam Smith didn't have a degree in economics either, yet he founded classical economics.

Yes but it would seem that Adam Smith's economic ideas worked whereas Karl Marx's economic ideas did not work, hence my position he was not an economist. You would agree my position makes logical sense, correct? If not, where is the fallacy in my reasoning in asserting my claim?

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin



Yes but it would seem that Adam Smith's economic ideas worked whereas Karl Marx's economic ideas did not work, hence my position he was not an economist. You would agree my position makes logical sense, correct? If not, where is the fallacy in my reasoning in asserting my claim?

You have shifted your stance - you are now claiming that Marx was merely a bad economist, whereas before you were claiming that he was not an economist at all. Which is it?

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

I didn't shift my stance. I was willing to change my position if somebody presented evidence that Karl Marx graduated with an economics degree, which it would appear, based on your assertion he has not. So, my position remains the same and unchanged, Karl Marx was not an economist. His ideas have yet to work when put in practice in the real world whereas Adam Smith's ideas have worked when put into practice in the real world.

Hence, why I would regard Adam Smith as an economist and but not Karl Marx given the fact they did not have economic degrees back then based on your assertion. So my position remains unchanged that Karl Marx was not an economist, unless you can present evidence that refutes my position. If you are able to, I would change my position to Karl Marx being an economist but not a very good economist. Hope that makes sense.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

I didn't shift my stance. I was willing to change my position if somebody presented evidence that Karl Marx graduated with an economics degree, which it would appear, based on your assertion he has not. So, my position remains the same and unchanged, Karl Marx was not an economist. His ideas have yet to work when put in practice in the real world whereas Adam Smith's ideas have worked when put into practice in the real world.

Hence, why I would regard Adam Smith as an economist and but not Karl Marx given the fact they did not have economic degrees back then based on your assertion. So my position remains unchanged that Karl Marx was not an economist, unless you can present evidence that refutes my position. If you are able to, I would change my position to Karl Marx being an economist but not a very good economist. Hope that makes sense.

I'm afraid it doesn't. If Adam Smith was an economist despite not having a degree in economics (which didn't exist in either his time or Marx's time), then it logically follows that Karl Marx must also have been an economist. Whether they were good or bad economists is a separate question.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

I'm afraid it doesn't. If Adam Smith was an economist despite not having a degree in economics (which didn't exist in either his time or Marx's time), then it logically follows that Karl Marx must also have been an economist. Whether they were good or bad economists is a separate question.

How does it not make sense? I would think my reasoning makes logical sense. However, following your line of reasoning, it would seem I could suggest anybody during those time periods can claim to be an economist and if their ideas didn't work they were simply a bad economist. We should treat them as an economist based on them laying claim to the title despite any qualification to back that claim up.

For somebody to make a claim to be an economist during those times, it would only make logical sense that they be able to demonstrate their ideas work when put into practice in the real world given, based on your assertion, that no formal education in economics existed during the times of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. My point is that there has to be some kind of qualification to support whether it be in formal education or putting economic ideas into practice that actually work in the real world to support the claim somebody was or is an economist.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

How does it not make sense? I would think my reasoning makes logical sense. However, following your line of reasoning, it would seem I could suggest anybody during those time periods can claim to be an economist and if their ideas didn't work they were simply a bad economist. We should treat them as an economist based on them laying claim to the title despite any qualification to back that claim up.

Yes.

For somebody to make a claim to be an economist during those times, it would only make logical sense that they be able to demonstrate their ideas work when put into practice in the real world given, based on your assertion, that no formal education in economics existed during the times of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. My point is that there has to be some kind of qualification to support whether it be in formal education or putting economic ideas into practice that actually work in the real world to support the claim somebody was or is an economist.

Why? It was literally impossible for anyone to "qualify" as an economist until the 20th century. Given that fact, anyone who devoted sufficient time and thought to economics had to be considered to be an economist. Whether they were good or bad economists is a separate question, and a largely subjective one.

[Wellsy]

It seems strange to speak of either Adam Smith and Marx having ideas proved in practiced exactly.
Adam Smith presented a very idealized sense of capitalist production emerging at the time and was a advocate in the interests of the emerging capitalist of England.
The emphasis on say division of labor wasn’t his creation although he advocated it.

And while Marx was an advocate of Communism, his most famous work is an analysis of capital more than it is a Utopian dreaming of communism. Much of economics is perfectly tolerable in their principles to Marxists. Economics is narrowed in scope today than it was of the political economists which Marx criticized in their presentation of capitalist production as merely a technical deveopment upon production but neglect its shaping of social relations and one sidedly emphasized points which downplayed its long term tendency for crisis.

Marx is vindicated in criticism, not in failed alternatives.
But even in this matter, the proof of such things is no crude task.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch04-s03.html

Some theoretical propositions may be directly confirmed and put into practice (for example, the geologists' assumption that there is uranium ore in a certain place at a certain depth). Others have to be practically confirmed by extremely circuitous ways, involving long or short intermediate links, through other sciences, through the applied fields of know ledge, through the revolutionary action of the masses, whose effect may show only years later. This is how certain mathematical ideas, the propositions of theoretical physics, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, history, aesthetic theory, and so on, take effect. Everything that is truly scientific must inevitably, directly or indirectly, sooner or later, be realised in life.

And there is much confusion in using the same term for Marx at times as he is somewhat distinct from the political economists of his work as his is a critique of political economy in it's ideological limitations. Which isn't a characterization that it wasn't scientific and an advancement upon understanding but that there was much confusion which Marx sought to overcome, clarify, to properly situate the truth of facts within certain limits.

[late]

I am open to changing my position if you can present evidence that he was formally educated in economics and earned an economics degree as part of his education.

Things were less formal back then.

"It has become fashionable to think that Karl Marx was not mainly an economist but instead integrated various disciplines—economics, sociology, political science, history, and so on—into his philosophy. But Mark Blaug, a noted historian of economic thought, points out that Marx wrote “no more than a dozen pages on the concept of social class, the theory of the state, and the materialist conception of history” while he wrote “literally 10,000 pages on economics pure and simple.”
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html

"Karl Heinrich Marx FRSA (German: [maʁks]; 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883)[13] was a German philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Again, you can say he was a bad economist, but ignoring the obvious is rewriting history. There are loads of early economists that lack relevance today, that doesn't mean they weren't economists.

One of the rules historians have is that you can't apply modern values to a historical context. That is what you are doing here.

[Godstud]

American thinkers helped create and use 2 atomic bombs. I'd hazard to say that American thinkers are far more dangerous.




Discuss.

[Potemkin]

American thinkers helped create and use 2 atomic bombs. I'd hazard to say that American thinkers are far more dangerous.




Discuss.

Most of those 'American' thinkers were actually German thinkers.

Discuss.