HexHammer wrote:But I do get it, you are indeed rambling.
The written word is what he said, everything else is hallusinations that allows it to be interpeted by madmen in all kinds of weird ways...
Is there something in this world not being interpreted? Adam Smith is interpreted, Hayek is interpreted, all texts and manuals about capitalism, free market, social theory in general, etc., whether critical or favorable, are interpretations. The task of good philosophical inquiry would be to separate the weird from the judicious men and the first step towards that goal would be to read the theories from the authors themselves, not resorting to dull, witless, prosaic third-hand resources. But it seems pretty obvious now that you are only aware of the common myths and popular catchlines about Marxism widespread in mass media, while completely ignoring the main sources, so it's very unlikely that you can achieve what good philosophical inquiry asks for.
HexHammer wrote:which is very dangerous, and you still denies the devestating results. You are in sever denial of the tragic consequenses.
I've stated my case about the cronological problems in the interpretation of Marx's texts and given the supporting arguments, for which I haven't seen any counterresponse. But I see what's happening here: you're running away to hide in the safe common places of stereotyped political discussions, where you think you may have a shot at making your arguments look sound. So I might guess that you will go with things like "see what Stalin did" or "how about the iron curtain", which is the kind of simpleminded, man on the street argument that has been dismantled thousands of times in forums, with different versions of this counterargument: if everything made in the name of some concept is implicitly contained within that concept (in other words, if the link between subject and predicate conforms an analytic proposition, instead of a synthetic one), then concepts like democracy, justice, freedom, peace, etc., implicitly contain the results of genocide, crime and oppression linked to the political actions of capitalist superpowers. The proposition is, of course, false, so we can still achieve what those concepts denote, despite their rhetorical use.
HexHammer wrote:Why did China and Soviet change back to capitalism? Because capitalists provides jobs, techonology, invenstments, etc. All that which Marxistic planeconomy doesn't provide, mixed with class equality.
Two mistakes here. First, the expression "Communism going back to capitalism" is what they call a contradictio in adjecto
, since Communism, by definition, implies the progression from one stage to another, the same way that in nature a butterfly implies the evolution from the pupa stage. You don't ask if the butterfly can go back to its cocoon. In Marx's Hegelian view of historical movement, the internal contradictions of Capitalism would be resolved by its own social drives; a new society would develop from the existing one, with gradual changes, a transitional phase of Socialism (the rule of the proletariat) and a final stage of Communism, in which there wouldn't even be a state. So, what the expression mentioned above actually denotes is that Communism has not actually been achieved. That is consistent with what Marx actually said about Communism not developing in isolated countries (and he was thinking of England, France, Germany and USA) and Wallerstein's approach to social analysis through the concept of Capitalism as world-system. Still while there where so called Communist countries, the system itself continued to be Capitalism, and the political and economical dynamics of those countries were to be understood as part of Capitalism itself.
Second mistake (assuming that by "planeconomy" you mean "planned economy") is to completely ignore the increased centralized nature of capitalist economies, where the role of the state becomes ever more crucial by way of central banks and other institutions instrumental to controlling employment, inflation, prices, etc. The free competition stage of 19th century Capitalism is now gone forever. Let's not be fooled by rhetoric, the fact is that states exercise a lot of control over their economies to deal with the effects of the economic cycle by means of the so called macroeconomic policies. And what are military interventions if not the expression of the economic interests of the whole capitalist class at the global level, disguised as national interests, through the centralized action of the state?