AM Marxist, EXCEPT FOR A SLIGHT DETAIL
AM MARXIST, EXCEPT FOR A SLIGHT DETAIL
:-) Yes, of course-especially the title, written by me, is challenging by design. Several of my friends should be trembling. Ok ok, Gabriel, we forgive you now you're messing with Freud, but please, not this. No please !!!!! Just a minute, go to "Socialism" of Mises, take a cold shower, go to do Aikido for a week, tomato 3 Rivotril 2 mg but ... ... This is not !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quiet, quiet, I'm playing with the title :-)), nothing happens. Simply, some have sometimes been asked, how strange, some authors "impenetrable" in Gabriel. One is Marx. With Marx, Gabriel combined magic with Heidegger: nothing here, nothing there. He has always fought, and lately also talks about the two M: Mises and Marx, deciding, of course, for the first time.
However, I always say that Marx is a philosopher in the history of Western philosophy, deep, fertile theoretical structure and therefore its ad hoc hypotheses have stood the test of history. Marx continues to penetrate not only the beliefs popular, but the ideas of many intellectuals very deep. Is that it is theory, and much, it's no nonsense. Surprisingly
that I have to remember, many of my writings I have already absorbed the Marx of the Frankfurt School. The theme of alienation I've absorbed without difficulty, especially by Habermas. The critique of instrumental rationality, criticism of the rationalization of lifeworlds, the conditions of dialogue as an exit, and then the existentialist themes of alienation: alienation as inauthentic existence (Heidegger), as blindness to the suffering face the other (Levinas) and neurosis noógena (Frankl) and most recently as regressive identification with father's authoritarian leader (Freud), psychoanalysis and deconstruction of the cogito sound hurt to meet a cogito now more aware of itself (Ricoeur). All this, except the last night out psychoanalytic, I wrote and from 1995 onwards, in "Intersubjectivity and Communication", and, above all, in "Feyerabend and the dialectic of Enlightenment."
So it is not true that I have not worked the theme of alienation that Marx is undoubtedly a privileged position. The "minor detail" :-)) is that, in Marx, his theory of alienation is necessarily linked to his theory of surplus value which is an important theoretical explanation of why the subject has alienated both exploiter and exploited by capitalist structures. And that combo between alienation and Marxist theory of exploitation is what many, especially my fellow philosophers, buy a unit, uncritically, without discerning. Is that they lack the other M, and understandably so. My colleagues are studying Marx in the history of philosophy, and rightly. And then many of them, who despise the economy, have had contact only with the economy of Marx, the last of the classical economists. And it is the only economy they know.
course. Why go to study the other M? Why come to study in Mises, an unknown "economist", and on top of "liberal"?
But gentlemen, Marxist theory is a theory opposed, so important, and so long exposed as the "Capital" of Marx. Is in "Socialism" of Mises, which also refers to the cap. 8 of Volume 1 of "Capital and Interest" by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, leaving released in 1884. The economy is not known today, is much more. Philosophy and philosophy is so is the economy of Marx. And all that cap. 8 -80 pages of 480 of Book I, to which must be added 466 of Book II and III-231 of the book is intended for theoretical refutation of the theory of operation of Marx, refutation which remains unknown to my colleagues in general. It turns out that Marx's theory was based on the cost value of Ricardo (who inherited part of the labor theory of value of the classics) and therefore for the goods he has a target value that has to do with the work contained in it, so which all other additional value in the commodity, which is on the employer, is a steal, a surplus value lies the exploitation. Marx failed to see the paradigm shift occurring in 1870 with the subjective theory value and decreasing marginal productivity, which implies that the value of all goods in the market depends on the value of the claim and that, applied to work, means that the value of work depends on the subjective demand attributed to the factor of production and that, therefore, with increasing demand for labor, real wages tend to increase precisely because of the dynamics of the capitalist system. Questions? Study, colleagues! Are they able to study Marx but not Bohm Bawerk and Mises? Do not believe them ...
But the problem is that with this error Marx could not conceive of scarcity and hence the economy led to an anti-economy, in a zero sum game where what one gains the lost the other. Which is perfectly compatible with his dialectical world, which was met exactly by another philosopher: Mises. For Marx, the history of mankind is the history of class struggle, for Mises, is the story of the evolution of division of labor .... Any questions, colleagues? Mises Lean! Colleagues, you know how to read. Lean.
This "little thing" in Marx is implying that many do not quite understand what are the free markets. The more moderate, but rejected the authoritarianism of a banana Chavez, Correa or Kirchner, however still have the hope to "get it" otherwise ... ... ... And at the bottom end justify the most egregious and ridiculous because Castro-style dictatorship "in the dialectic of history," the result will be positive ... ... ... ... ... ...
While these issues are not more studied, the interpretation of social phenomena continue to be a Marxist, not only by the phenomena of mass, but because intellectuals, Marx is a theory that can even penetrate deep Christian faith of those who believe in his theory of exploitation, as has already happened. It is a powerful theory. The Frankfurt School has taken the best of it but not distinguish it from its social dialectic. It's time the two m's, Marx and Mises, discuss in their attempt to lay redemption of mankind, and find both their limits in a transcendent conception of human life. First
0 comments:
Post a Comment