Political Economists: Adams Smith, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mills

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,668
Florania
Why are we suddenly discussing the Marx brothers? I bet Karl Marx wasn't related to them at all.
Have any people here seriously tackled the Capital at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartakus X
Jan 2012
442
South Midlands in Britain
All political philosophers are the product of their times. To understand what they are saying requires a knowledge of the period in which they were saying it and an understanding of the context of what they were writing. Sadly, this is hardly ever the case. Foolishly, people read an old book and then declare it is the real deal for ever. I have no desire to constrain anyone's enthusiasm and we should all read widely, but political philosophy must be examined with consideration and understanding.

On a gentler note, I never forget a poster put up during Les Evenments in Paris in 1968 that read `Je suis Marxiste - Groucho-style.' I can all go along with that as I would not choose to a member of a club which allowed me to join.
 
Nov 2019
82
United States
I think Marx is pretty well known and understood, and that lends a poor evaluation of both the man and his ideas in the end. His facts were wrong, his ideas were bad, his concepts when followed by nations led to despotic tyranny, and the death of 200 million people. As a man, he was a drunk, cheated on his wife, had an illegitimate child from his housekeeper who he refused to pay a decent wage, he never admitted that the child was his. Tried to get Engels to claims it was his, but refused, and on his deathbed told of Marx's deception.

He lived off the money that Engels got from his wealthy family, never worked a day of the hard work he extolled.

He had no problem with murder as long as it advanced his beliefs, and even though his family was Jewish he hated Jews, he also hated people of color, and described them in despicable ways.

I've never in my life understood what people see in him, read his book when I was 17.

 
Dec 2018
114
Cheyenne
I think Marx is pretty well known and understood, and that lends a poor evaluation of both the man and his ideas in the end. His facts were wrong, his ideas were bad, his concepts when followed by nations led to despotic tyranny, and the death of 200 million people. As a man, he was a drunk, cheated on his wife, had an illegitimate child from his housekeeper who he refused to pay a decent wage, he never admitted that the child was his. Tried to get Engels to claims it was his, but refused, and on his deathbed told of Marx's deception.

He lived off the money that Engels got from his wealthy family, never worked a day of the hard work he extolled.

He had no problem with murder as long as it advanced his beliefs, and even though his family was Jewish he hated Jews, he also hated people of color, and described them in despicable ways.

I've never in my life understood what people see in him, read his book when I was 17.

You criticize Karl Marx yet link to ultra conservative propaganda in Prager U.

As far as we can tell in terms of criticism of capitalism that he didn't get right was the destruction of the planet.

Capitalism is unfolding exactly as Karl Marx predicted

One hundred and sixty years ago, at a time when the light bulb was not yet invented, Karl Marx predicted that robots would replace humans in the workplace.

“[O]nce adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labor passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery,” he wrote in his then-unpublished manuscript Fundamentals of Political Economy Criticism. “The workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.”

 
Jul 2019
113
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
Might be good to add a few modern Political Economists to the list: Ludwig Von Mises, Fredrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and John Maynard Keynes.

My preference leads towards Fredrich Hayek and Friedman, love The Road to Serfdom by Hayek.
I agree with this.

I especially would like to see some references to the Marginalist Revolution and the methodology of economics - the methodological dualism of von Mises versus the positivist assumptions of Friedman and the Chicago school, which differ from the Keynesian oulook only in the conclusions drawn and not in their epistemological assumptions.
 
Last edited: