Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The text debunks the USE of marx's wholly artificial terminology

I was talking about Das Kapital, but since you mention it where does the article debunk the two value types argument? If I knew then I could formulate a response. See that's the problem.

[Odin]

This thread has gone straight to Hell.

[Spiffor]

Well, it did begin straight in hell

[Velociryx]

Oh my ever livin' Lord, you have got to be kidding me?!

As one of the guiding principles of Marxist thinking, the author of the critique spends a great deal of his time debunking Marx's various falsehoods in artificially breaking value (and other elements of the equation) into un- or falsely-differentiated segments with the purpose of later USING these false variables in the place of (and often quoting other economists (Smith, Ricardo) USING his invented terminology) and/or his revised definitions of existing terminology.

That you even had to ask the question is indicative of the fact that you've not even read the refutation.

Given that your last several posts have been all about your having read it, and the ease with which you could debunk it, there is, at this point, no reason whatsoever to continue the discussion.

You have demonstrated yourself in this latest post as dishonest, and in your previous several as being incapable of disputing anything besides calling into question the author's assertion that many marxist's have never read marx (which I have no information on, so cannot comment on either way).

Given that your one "point" (potential point) is immaterial to the discussion or comparison of the two economic theories, I would have to say that your refutation has, to this meager point you have brought it, been an unmitigated disaster.



-=Vel=-

PS:
I was talking about Das Kapital,

Really? That's interesting since you're not counter-critiquing Das Capital, nor do any of Blatt's words appear IN that work. Pretty neat trick there, Kidicious!


If I knew then I could formulate a response. See that's the problem.

In that case, I heartily recomment actually READING the damned article you're attempting to refute.

[Kidlicious]

Vel,

I have pity for you. I have no interest in this any further. You can not formulate a logical argument. Then you post a similar argument from a website and start claiming things about it that aren't true. Then you won't back up your claims.

[Velociryx]

that's about what I expected, and a strategy you have employed every time we have butted heads on this issue, recently.

the moment you find yourself in over your head, you scamper away, leaving behind a trail of lame excuses in a desperate attempt to point the finger ANYWHERE but squarely at you.

the problem is, everyone who copies and pastes the link into the browser of their choice will see that what I'm saying is absolutely true. Thus, to say that I'm making stuff up is rediculous in the extreme.

the refutation you refer to is steeped in logic and the practical application of economic theory as it is used today in our modern economy....not in marxist fantasy.

i cannot say I blame you for giving up, given just how untentable your position is...but I DO tire of your desperate finger pointing retreats at each ending.



-=Vel=-

[Ned]

The party boss holds up four fingers and asks, once more, "How many fingers." The desparate thought-crime prisoner, seeking to end the tortue, exclaims, finally, "FIVE!" I see FIVE fingers.!"

The party boss, relaxes and waves off the torturers. With a wink and a smile, he says to the now ecstatic prisoner, "Now you understand that language means what we say it means."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
but I DO tire of your desperate finger pointing retreats at each ending.

Then I propose an agreement to not respond to each other any longer. I would like to discuss issues without you responding so that we do not get into the same old crap, and I think you would also like me to not respond to your arguments. I think that would make things more pleasant for everyone.

edit: and the agreement would include a no baiting clause. That is we can not try to bait each other specifically.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
The party boss holds up four fingers and asks, once more, "How many fingers." The desparate thought-crime prisoner, seeking to end the tortue, exclaims, finally, "FIVE!" I see FIVE fingers.!"

The party boss, relaxes and waves off the torturers. With a wink and a smile, he says to the now ecstatic prisoner, "Now you understand that language means what we say it means."

That's pretty much what happened. Somehow 2 things was 1 thing.

[Velociryx]

Then I propose an agreement to not respond to each other any longer. I would like to discuss issues without you responding so that we do not get into the same old crap, and I think you would also like me to not respond to your arguments. I think that would make things more pleasant for everyone.

edit: and the agreement would include a no baiting clause. That is we can not try to bait each other specifically.

I have a counter-proposal. You openly acknowledge that you've been duped by Marxist thought and thinking for the past however many years it's been, and stop pretending that Marxist theory has anything to do with logic, and we won't have a problem.

(and in case that wasn't quite clear enough, I'll put it another way: No deal. )

EDIT: Or, the simpler solution...if you don't want to read my responses to your tripe, then put me on your ignore list. The "no bait" clause would trigger about every time you came out to hum a few bars in praise of Marx anyways, rendering the whole agreement rather pointless. But I suspect you already knew that.

Oh, and:

That's pretty much what happened. Somehow 2 things was 1 thing.

The "two things" you're referring to would be "use value" and "exchange value", would they?

Because if they are, you're wrong again. The "two things" were always one thing. Adam Smith was writing about value a long time before big daddy Marx came along. It was Marx who took the one thing, and broke it down into many extraneous parts in order to serve his own propaganda needs.

But thanks for providing another nail for your coffin...

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Then I propose an agreement to not respond to each other any longer. I would like to discuss issues without you responding so that we do not get into the same old crap, and I think you would also like me to not respond to your arguments. I think that would make things more pleasant for everyone.

edit: and the agreement would include a no baiting clause. That is we can not try to bait each other specifically.

I have a counter-proposal. You openly acknowledge that you've been duped by Marxist thought and thinking for the past however many years it's been, and stop pretending that Marxist theory has anything to do with logic, and we won't have a problem.

(and in case that wasn't quite clear enough, I'll put it another way: No deal. )

EDIT: Or, the simpler solution...if you don't want to read my responses to your tripe, then put me on your ignore list. The "no bait" clause would trigger about every time you came out to hum a few bars in praise of Marx anyways, rendering the whole agreement rather pointless. But I suspect you already knew that.

Oh, and:

That's pretty much what happened. Somehow 2 things was 1 thing.

The "two things" you're referring to would be "use value" and "exchange value", would they?

Because if they are, you're wrong again. The "two things" were always one thing. Adam Smith was writing about value a long time before big daddy Marx came along. It was Marx who took the one thing, and broke it down into many extraneous parts in order to serve his own propaganda needs.

But thanks for providing another nail for your coffin...

-=Vel=-

Utility is a form of value according to JS Mill, Jevons, and Walras. Learn some history of economic thought, and stop posting BS. Smith didn't know everything. In fact there have actually been advancements in economics since the Wealth of Nations. OMFG! No ****!

[Velociryx]

Utility is a form of value according to JS Mill, Jevons, and Walras. Learn some history of economic thought, and stop posting BS. Smith didn't know everything. In fact there have actually been advancements in economics since the Wealth of Nations. OMFG! No ****!

Unfortunately, you continue to shoot blindly, and utterly miss the argument. From an economic standpoint, value is value, and despite what your good uncle Marx told you, a number of factors contribute to its creation. To pretend otherwise is as false as the rest of the Marxist argument that follows, or, in your own vernacular...it (Marx's "theory") is BS.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

there have actually been advancements in economics since the Wealth of Nations.

Unfortunately for you, Marxism wasn't one of them.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

If you won't look at actual Marxist theory in context and whole then there is nothing to debate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
From an economic standpoint, value is value, and despite what your good uncle Marx told you, a number of factors contribute to its creation.

By the way JS Mill, Jevon, and Walras were all economists. The concept of utility is an economic concept accepted by ALL economists with the exception of those who came before Marx.