I think I'm going to start a Capital reading group on Mises

[Broletariat]

If I decide to, I'll post the links to the topics here, lol.

Or would that be considered board invasion/trolling or some such moddable offense? >_>

[scarletghoul]

It would be awesome. Pretend to be a hardcore misesist at the start and say like "it will be fun to tear apart the fallacies in this garbage step by step". then as the group progresses slowly start to go like "hmmm i guess that makes sense actually " etc

[Broletariat]

It would be awesome. Pretend to be a hardcore misesist at the start and say like "it will be fun to tear apart the fallacies in this garbage step by step". then as the group progresses slowly start to go like "hmmm i guess that makes sense actually " etc

If I did it, I'd strictly discuss the book and make no extrapolations nor address any comments posted NOT dealing with the book.

[Dogs On Acid]

Move to Non-Political, because it's too important for Chit-Chat and not important enough for Main-Forums

:lol:

[Broletariat]

Move to Non-Political, because it's too important for Chit-Chat and not important enough for Main-Forums

:lol:

Goddammit, all of my threads get fucking moved somewhere else.

I make one in theory? it gets moved to chit-chat. I make one in chit-chat? it goes to theory, one in non-political? to theory. Another one in non-political? chit-chat it's bound.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most of the people who are really into Mises and Menger (the Marx-Engels of Austrian economics) are fundamentalists, often moreso than leftists. Who for all pretenses of "science" often exhibit self-indulgant dogmatism that would put religious zealots to shame lol, so that's no mean feat. I don't think that you're going to make any inroads.

If that's even your goal. If your goal is just to be a troll, then troll on bruuuther.

[Princess Luna]

Ha ha, i was lurking on Mises earlier and i saw your post and thought you were serious :laugh:

[Broletariat]

Ha ha, i was lurking on Mises earlier and i saw your post and thought you were serious :laugh:

I was serious man :P

The first topic is up there if anyone wants to see it, not a soul has responded to it save one guy who had another excellent idea.

[Broletariat]

Well, people are actually asking questions. I think my latest post was witty as FUCK.

[Broletariat]

Here comes the subjectivity argument :/

[Broletariat]

I just
Converted
A Misean

Okay he has like 5 posts but still.

Unless that was one of you blokes?

[JustMovement]

good thread. one point, i feel that the antique car costing more becauseit took more time to make back in the day argument does not hold up.

Antiques, to be fair, do not derive their price from labour except originally. but they are outside the scheme of "general commodity production", because they are not a commodity produced generally. You cannot produce an antique if you know what i mean.

[Broletariat]

good thread. one point, i feel that the antique car costing more becauseit took more time to make back in the day argument does not hold up.

Antiques, to be fair, do not derive their price from labour except originally. but they are outside the scheme of "general commodity production", because they are not a commodity produced generally. You cannot produce an antique if you know what i mean.

Yea I know, that was a bit intellectually dishonest of me. The reason they cost more is supply and demand. The reason why what I said is wrong is because labour is not embodied in a commodity. Commodities value derives from how much labour it takes to make them RIGHT NOW.

[Broletariat]

Honestly, this is really quite fun, I'm getting more intellectual stimulation here than revleft, but perhaps that's just because I'm being confronted with opposing views I must consider.

[Who?]

Honestly, this is really quite fun, I'm getting more intellectual stimulation here than revleft, but perhaps that's just because I'm being confronted with opposing views I must consider.

I don't remember there being many in-depth Capital discussion threads on RevLeft.

Capital threads here usually consist of users asking other users to clarify things for them.

[HEAD ICE]

well recently it seems that threads on capital has people asking why the fuck marxists should read books by karl marx

[Broletariat]

well recently it seems that threads on capital has people asking why the fuck marxists should read books by karl marx

Yea, I just ignored those posts.

Commodity Fetishism topic is up now.

[Broletariat]

Holy shit, we had some good discussion up on Commodity Fetishism.

[HEAD ICE]

how about post a link brother i dont want to keep navigating that website

[Zanthorus]

Holy shit, we had some good discussion up on Commodity Fetishism.

I have a feeling it'll get even better towards the chapter on money. Von Mises has a dirty secret you see. From 'The Theory of Money and Credit':


Even less worthy of serious attention are those schemes of social reform which, while not condemning the use of money in general, object to the use of gold and silver In fact, such hostility to the precious metals has something very childish in it. When Thomas More, for example, endows the criminals in his utopia with golden chains and the ordinary citizens with gold and silver chamber pots, [2] it is in something of the spirit that leads primitive mankind to wreak vengeance on lifeless images and symbols.

It is hardly worthwhile to devote even a moment to such fantastic suggestions, which have never been taken seriously. All the criticism of them that was necessary has been completed long ago. [3]

Guess what citation [3] was.


how about post a link brother i dont want to keep navigating that website

It's here (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25372.aspx) and I'm halfway down the page and I feel like I'm going to rip my eyes out. Not reccomended reading. I'm still amazed they haven't banned him actually. Funny, their board is more relaxed in it's rules than Revleft.

[Broletariat]

I have a feeling it'll get even better towards the chapter on money. Von Mises has a dirty secret you see. From 'The Theory of Money and Credit':


Guess what citation [3] was.



I'm going to bring this up.

The chapter on money is chapter 3 right? >_>

But yea, I have a considerable amount of patience for this kind of thing, I want to be a teacher :3

[Zanthorus]

I'm going to bring this up.

I should probably note that the citation isn't Capital itself, it's the 1897 edition of 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, however it is Marx. There are a number of other interesting connections between Austrian economics and Marx's work, actualy. For example, Austrians also believe that crisis is basically caused by overproduction, however they believe this is the result of the government lowering interest rates below the natural market rate and hence artifically expanding the supply of credit. Also Menger and Bohm-Bawerk agreed with Marx's argument in Volume III that market prices oscillate around prices of production, and Bohm-Bawerk is even explicit about this, however his argument is that this is incompatible with the argument in Volume I for the theory of value, which it isn't (for reasons you should already know). To be frank, so far your trolling is a bit amateurish. There's a lot of places you can go with this, but what you really need to do (or should've done actually) is read some Austrian works and use snippets from those in support of your argument. That would've been brilliant, and still could be brilliant if you actually put some effort into the next few threads instead of copy-pasting posts by ZeroNowhere and then responding with single sentences. This isn't 4chan you're dealing with here, afterall.

Another slightly less obvious example would be von Mises argument that money naturally arises on the market-place in The Theory of Money and Credit. Basically this is because of the qualitative differences between various use-values, which means that they cannot function as universal wealth, because the needs of particular individuals are different (This is sometimes referred to as the double inequality of wants). For example, if a musician wants shelter, and people pay him for his music in food, but the owner of the local inn won't accept payment in food, he's screwed. Money functions as a universal measure and store of wealth, to which all commodities and are thus equated as equal magnitudes of the same subtance, and hence overcomes this problem. In other words, if we have market exchange then we need to have all commodities reduced to magnitudes of the same substance, equal qualitatively and hence comparable and exchangeable quantitatively. It should be fairly obvious how this argument could be twisted around into an argument that the equation of all goods on the market place to the universal measure of wealth - money - reduced the particular concrete labours of the individuals who produce this wealth to human labour in the abstract.


The chapter on money is chapter 3 right? >_>

This could be something of a problem, however...

(The answer is yes by the way)

[Broletariat]

I'm not meaning to troll :/

I haven't even finished Capital yet man cut me some slack.

You make an account and help me out :D

[Zanthorus]

I'm not meaning to troll :/

Well it isn't 'trolling' so much as it is a hilarious way of arguing for Marxism that will blow the Misesoids out of the water.


You make an account and help me out :D

I already have an account over there, and very little patience for sustaining an argument with any of them. So no.

[Johnny Kerosene]

That guy who said he was going to discuss the Satanic Bible on Catholic.org, whom you told to PM you the links if he did it? Did he do it? And if he did, can you PM them to me?