4 ms·
Irrelevant. Many who have read Marx (and peers like Ricardo, Smith) would agree his description of the problem was a lot better than his guess at a possible sol
by galdosdi 4y ago
Irrelevant. Many who have read Marx (and peers like Ricardo, Smith) would agree his description of the problem was a lot better than his guess at a possible solution, and that's okay. Considering Marx was describing a very new phenomenon, it's not surprising the first attempt to guess at a solution turned out hare-brained. The detailed description of the problem still is very valuable and shockingly apt today. And now we have a lot more data.
Don't comment on Marx if all you know is "lol communism didn't work in russia". That's a borderline non sequitur that just reveals you don't know what Marx said at all. It's like British people meeting Mormons and saying "Oh you're a real mormon? What like from South Park?" You don't have to read Marx in the original, just spend half an hour on a Wikipedia or cliffsnotes summary at least beforehand. Maybe do the same for Smith and Ricardo, too, so you can have a good overview.
- WalterBright 4y ago> communism didn't work in russia It didn't work anywhere else, either, and it's been tried thousands of times. Note I did not say "Soviet Union".
- galdosdi 4y agoA nitpick about country names, really? These are really low-effort comments. And you keep trying to derail the conversation back to communism even though you're the only one fascinated by it here. Do you also refuse to learn basic physics because Isaac Newton was imperfect and despite coming up with some great physical laws, also believed some nonsense about alchemy that later was shown to be nonsense? Do you bring up the craziness of alchemy every time newtonian mechanics comes up, and refuse to believe in momentum, mass, and kinetic energy? Having to argue about this crap every time Marx comes up is tiring and intellectually ineffecient. At this point I wish we could blame just the smart things Marx said on someone else like say, Mark Twain, just so the adults in the room can discuss the workings, benefits, and problems of capitalism without constantly getting interrupted by irrelevant low-effort arguing.
- worldsayshi 4y agoI would normally agree with you but I'm bored with both of these takes. Communism bad, no communism actually not bad. Whatever. Can we move past this already? What I want is a good faith argument for something that works as a solution for Marx stated problem. What can we propose? What can we learn?
- WalterBright 4y agoCapitalism has many good mechanisms for dealing with externalities. The most obvious one is to tax it.
- WalterBright 4y agoI didn't say "russia", either. You brought up country names, put it in quotes, and attributed it to me.