Маркс и Енгелс заговарали расно истребљење Словена

[Ignjatije]

Па то је то што кажем - не знамо шта конкретно, али је "имао добрих идеја"...

 

Ако би ушли у детаље о било којој ствари коју си навео закључак би можда био мало другачији.

 

Рекао сам ти да сам изашао из тога одавно. Да бих дао детаље морао бих прво да се подсетим науке неолибералног капиталзима и марксизма. Ако ми дође да се подсетим добићеш и адекватне одговоре.

 

"Манифест" овај народ осећа на својој кожи задњих година и без да га чита

[Vockica]

Опет ћу ја са "контроверзним ставовима", али након пада комунизма у Православљу је проблем био недостатак верника-интелектуалаца међу лаицима па су тај вакуум попунили многи који иначе нису нешто посебно, само зато што су се ту нашли.

Jerotic i njegovi roditelji nikad nisu bili komunisti, da bi Jerotic osecao duznost da brani Marksa. Eh sad, oces da kazes da nije ni neki intelektualac koji je popunio pravoslavnu intelektualnu elitu?

[Grizzly Adams]

Па ја лично нисам нешто одушевљен, али то је само моје мишљење.

[Avocado]

На шта конкретно мислиш? Које његове идеје?

 

 

Tu sam mislio više na metod i način proučavanja društvenih tema. Kao što rekoh, ideje su se ispostavile kao pogrešne...

 

[Аурор]

То је из неког часописа који су они издавали, сећам се да сам видео негде на нету али не могу да нађем сад...

 

Видиш да сам бизи, браним хришћанство...

 

Novine su se zvale Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

 

A o marksizmu/komunizmu nema šta da se govori stvarno, osim možda činjenice da je broj leševa izgurao na 100 miliona...

 

 

Tu sam mislio više na metod i način proučavanja društvenih tema. Kao što rekoh, ideje su se ispostavile kao pogrešne...

 

 

Ali kako je moguće da je proučavao na pravi način ako je iz toga proizašlo kako je proizašlo?

[Grizzly Adams]

Трагедија је да код нас, а и не само код нас, нису довољно (тј. уопште) познати прави критичари Марксизма који су његове идеје аргументовано "раставили на просте чиниоце" и оповргли - као што је то на пример Лудвиг фон Мизес:

 

The "Iron Law" of Wages

 

The pith of Marx's economic teachings is his "law" of wages. This alleged law that is at the bottom of his entire criticism of the capitalistic system is, of course, not of Marxian make. It was devised by earlier authors, had long since been known under the label of the "iron law of wages" and had already been thoroughly refuted before Marx employed it as the foundation of his doctrine. Marx chose to ignore all that had been said to show the viciousness of the reasoning implied in this alleged law. He made some sarcastic remarks about the German translation of the English term "iron law," as suggested by his main rival for the leadership of the German socialist party, Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864). But he built his entire economic reasoning, all his prognostication of the future course of economic affairs and his whole political program upon the illusory basis of this fallacious theorem.

 

This so-called "iron law" declares that wage rates are determined by the cost of the means of subsistence required for the bare maintenance of the labor force. The wage earner cannot get more than is physiologically needed to preserve his capacity to work and to enable him to raise the number of children required to replace him when he dies. If wages rise above this level, the wage earners will rear more progeny and the competition of these additional seekers for employment will reduce wage rates again to what this doctrine considers the natural level. If, on the other hand, wages drop below this alleged natural level, the workers will not be able to feed the number of offspring needed to fill the ranks of the labor force. There will then develop a shortage of laborers and competition among the employers will bring wage rates back to the natural level.

 

From the point of view of this alleged "iron law" the fate of the wage earners under capitalism appears hopeless. They can never lift themselves above the level of bare subsistence. No reforms, no governmental minimum wage enactment's, no activities of labor unions can prove effectual against this iron law. Under capitalism, the proletarians are doomed to remain forever on the verge of starvation. All the advantages derived from the improvement of technological methods of production are pocketed exclusively by the capitalists. This is what the Marxian category of exploitation means. By right, Marx implies, all the products ought to benefit those who are producing them, the manual workers. The mere existence of the bourgeoisie is parasitic. While the proletarians suffer, the bourgeois exploit, feast and revel.

 

Capitalist Production

 

Now one has only to look around in order to detect that something must be entirely wrong with this description of capitalism's economic functioning.

 

 ...

 

Наставак: https://mises.org/efandi/ch26.asp

 

Или ово: http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/Marxism%20Unmasked.pdf