I read "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World" back in the mid-1970s, and I am part way through reading it again. The one thing I had remembered about it was that it takes a government to surrender. Then the invader can take over the administration of the country. Otherwise they would need to station soldiers on every corner, where they could be picked of by citizens with guns. A very expensive proposition.
By Freedom, Harry Brown means he freedom to choose and do whatever makes you HAPPY. It is obvious that skiing makes you happy. and you are fortunate to have accumulated the resources that allow you to enjoy travelling to one of the best hills and skiing for five (count 'em, 5) days.
I hadn't thought about Marxists not understanding reality. But it makes sense. They think Utopia can be achieved by the force of government! They refuse to see the reality that this strategy has failed whereveri has been tried. Unfortunately, they have switched from revolution to infiltration and subversion and are leading us down the socialist path to communism.
I really think that the engraving on Marx's tomb is the best encapsulation of what the left stands for. It is not that leftists CANNOT understand reality; they just don't care about it, as for them the only reality that matters is the one they are about to create by sheer willpower.
Man the only ‘violent fervor’ I see on Substack is always some caricature of Marxism which essentially just equates it with Stalinism/Maoism and acts like what those governments did somehow makes Marx’s entire project of economic theory suddenly null and void. It would be like saying the teachings of Christ are illegitimate (as a moral/historical document) because of all the bloody wars and brutal regimes that found justification in Christianity.
Clearly you haven’t read Marx, or Smith for that matter, because then you would see the carryover and in fact deep esteem Marx had for Capitalism. Perhaps you have been taught to think that Marxism=Communism=Nazism (or Genocide or whatever proverbial negative association feels emotionally appropriate in such a moment). The fact is that social democracies, labor unions, and philosophy in general owe him a great deal. The best way to explain his relevance is to thing of him as “an astronomer, not an astrologer” or as someone who has helped us understand a great deal about ourselves and where we are historically, but not reliable as an political theorist of oracular economic sensibilities.
It is also interesting that you tried to apply the “Labor theory of Value” to a ski area, but you only seem to be arguing that a ski area couldn’t turn a profit if it was a centrally ran socialist economy, which just seems.. quite obvious and doesn’t really have anything to do with Marx. Marx was carrying out a very broad analysis of history, it was a macro theory that sought to describe the past, not a micro model that would succeed anytime anyplace. Even his communist manifesto specifically laid out which countries would be ideal for such a society, and Russia was somewhere around the bottom of the list. If you read Book II & III of ‘Capital’ he also lays out why the rentier class would effectively quash a socialist utopia and why it is a somewhat impossible vision, a reason these two later volumes of ‘Capital’ were censored in communist countries and remain largely unabsorbed by most of the world who have only read Volume I on Labor Theory of Value.
Also, I can’t think a better example of a recreational sport which has been becoming more and more untenable for the everyday person to enjoy because of the logic of capitalism I.e. profit and competition above all else. These ski areas are raising prices on everything just because they can, then you got places like Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake City that are almost unskiable now because of the congested traffic to even get on the mountain. It’s easier than ever to everything you need to ski, but to actually get on the mountain and enjoy yourself is slowly becoming more and more of a privilege and less a feature. It’s always been a rich man’s game, but now you’d be hard pressed to afford a ski bum lifestyle anymore. It’s tough because as a skier you want to share your sport and the love you have for it, but when so many rich people constantly drive up the cost of every part of the experience (and that’s not Marx, just capitalism doing its thing) it stops feeling so free and laid back and gets turned into a theme park where they are finding a way to squeeze you for every buck.
So yeah, the new ultra-corporatisation of ski areas is not a grand achievement of capitalism. I’d argue it is actually hurting the sport and pricing out a majority of people just to create an exclusive atmosphere of luxury for the clients with the big bucks, since they are slowly becoming the only class of citizens with a sizeable amount of disposable income.
Maybe you can explore them. Only four of them are relevant, you can skip the fifth. Wolff is a waste of time.
I cannot even say which one should you start with, maybe Böhm-Bawerk.
My own post, "Why Marxism" is a rabbit hole of references with the conversations also spilling into the comments.
I did not try to apply the 'labour theory of value" to ski resorts, as it is my firm belief that the labour theory of value cannot be applied to ANYTHING.
But feel free to prove me wrong.
Maybe we can even subject the questions to a formal debate 😊
The kind I suggested in the pinned post of my Substack:
First I have to say I admire that you are writing from a perspective of real experience living in a communist country, something which academics and others cannot understand no matter the amount of honest contemplation or dedicated theoretical research. There is no substitute for the real.
I once lived with a Polish friend, a fellow student, who had a deep engrained hatred for Marx, Bolshevism, Communism, etc. to the point that he would become so enraged at the mentioning of these systems of political thought that you could not reason with him. I have noticed a deep emotional resentment towards Marxist theory, and believe I understand why as much as I am able through the medium of imaginative curiosity. I cannot help but notice though that these feelings are always of an anecdotal sort and they don’t really take any ‘Marxism’ or ‘Communist’ theory into account; it is mostly just an expression of justifiable grievance aimed at a corrupt, inefficient, and unusually brutal system of governance. ‘Marxism’ always acts as a proverbial scapegoat for political frustration.
A glance through any world history book will demonstrate how cruel and unusual regimes are nothing new under the sun, but that the paradoxical rhetoric and soul-deafening logic of Sino-Soviet Communism (particularly towards the very people it espoused to save) raises legitimate tautological concerns regarding the traditions of historical materialism.
Thanks to the landmark literary contribution of folks like Solzhenitsyn though, the West all but fell out of fantasy with Communism after the horrors of the Gulags and the state writ large were revealed to the world. He even writes about how the work they were doing was supposed to be a glorious renewal of society, but really it was just a slow painful march towards death.
The point I am stressing here, and elsewhere, is not that I am a supporter of Communism or a die-hard proponent of Marxist theory. I just stand for the truth. The only actual self proclaimed communist I know is Zizek, and even then I take everything he says with a grain of salt (like the skiing comment). It is that by having such an emotional attachment to the political identity of Marxism/Communism, you are closing yourself off from the important truths that it deals with. Again, it would be like eschewing the moral value and importance of the Ten Commandments because of The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc.
Just because ruthless power brokers cloaked their murderous actions under the guise of political idealism does nothing to take away from the original meaning of the document.
Do not read what others have wrote about Marx, Smith, Ricardo, etc.
Read them for yourself and then pass judgement. You may find more truth than you would care to admit, especially as someone economically inclined as per your previous writings.
And if you cannot bring yourself to read/understand them, then you should pass over in silence what you cannot comprehend.
I read "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World" back in the mid-1970s, and I am part way through reading it again. The one thing I had remembered about it was that it takes a government to surrender. Then the invader can take over the administration of the country. Otherwise they would need to station soldiers on every corner, where they could be picked of by citizens with guns. A very expensive proposition.
By Freedom, Harry Brown means he freedom to choose and do whatever makes you HAPPY. It is obvious that skiing makes you happy. and you are fortunate to have accumulated the resources that allow you to enjoy travelling to one of the best hills and skiing for five (count 'em, 5) days.
I hadn't thought about Marxists not understanding reality. But it makes sense. They think Utopia can be achieved by the force of government! They refuse to see the reality that this strategy has failed whereveri has been tried. Unfortunately, they have switched from revolution to infiltration and subversion and are leading us down the socialist path to communism.
I really think that the engraving on Marx's tomb is the best encapsulation of what the left stands for. It is not that leftists CANNOT understand reality; they just don't care about it, as for them the only reality that matters is the one they are about to create by sheer willpower.
Man the only ‘violent fervor’ I see on Substack is always some caricature of Marxism which essentially just equates it with Stalinism/Maoism and acts like what those governments did somehow makes Marx’s entire project of economic theory suddenly null and void. It would be like saying the teachings of Christ are illegitimate (as a moral/historical document) because of all the bloody wars and brutal regimes that found justification in Christianity.
Clearly you haven’t read Marx, or Smith for that matter, because then you would see the carryover and in fact deep esteem Marx had for Capitalism. Perhaps you have been taught to think that Marxism=Communism=Nazism (or Genocide or whatever proverbial negative association feels emotionally appropriate in such a moment). The fact is that social democracies, labor unions, and philosophy in general owe him a great deal. The best way to explain his relevance is to thing of him as “an astronomer, not an astrologer” or as someone who has helped us understand a great deal about ourselves and where we are historically, but not reliable as an political theorist of oracular economic sensibilities.
It is also interesting that you tried to apply the “Labor theory of Value” to a ski area, but you only seem to be arguing that a ski area couldn’t turn a profit if it was a centrally ran socialist economy, which just seems.. quite obvious and doesn’t really have anything to do with Marx. Marx was carrying out a very broad analysis of history, it was a macro theory that sought to describe the past, not a micro model that would succeed anytime anyplace. Even his communist manifesto specifically laid out which countries would be ideal for such a society, and Russia was somewhere around the bottom of the list. If you read Book II & III of ‘Capital’ he also lays out why the rentier class would effectively quash a socialist utopia and why it is a somewhat impossible vision, a reason these two later volumes of ‘Capital’ were censored in communist countries and remain largely unabsorbed by most of the world who have only read Volume I on Labor Theory of Value.
Also, I can’t think a better example of a recreational sport which has been becoming more and more untenable for the everyday person to enjoy because of the logic of capitalism I.e. profit and competition above all else. These ski areas are raising prices on everything just because they can, then you got places like Cottonwood Canyon in Salt Lake City that are almost unskiable now because of the congested traffic to even get on the mountain. It’s easier than ever to everything you need to ski, but to actually get on the mountain and enjoy yourself is slowly becoming more and more of a privilege and less a feature. It’s always been a rich man’s game, but now you’d be hard pressed to afford a ski bum lifestyle anymore. It’s tough because as a skier you want to share your sport and the love you have for it, but when so many rich people constantly drive up the cost of every part of the experience (and that’s not Marx, just capitalism doing its thing) it stops feeling so free and laid back and gets turned into a theme park where they are finding a way to squeeze you for every buck.
So yeah, the new ultra-corporatisation of ski areas is not a grand achievement of capitalism. I’d argue it is actually hurting the sport and pricing out a majority of people just to create an exclusive atmosphere of luxury for the clients with the big bucks, since they are slowly becoming the only class of citizens with a sizeable amount of disposable income.
At the end of the post you can find five links.
Maybe you can explore them. Only four of them are relevant, you can skip the fifth. Wolff is a waste of time.
I cannot even say which one should you start with, maybe Böhm-Bawerk.
My own post, "Why Marxism" is a rabbit hole of references with the conversations also spilling into the comments.
I did not try to apply the 'labour theory of value" to ski resorts, as it is my firm belief that the labour theory of value cannot be applied to ANYTHING.
But feel free to prove me wrong.
Maybe we can even subject the questions to a formal debate 😊
The kind I suggested in the pinned post of my Substack:
https://zorkthehun.substack.com/p/an-audacious-proposal
First I have to say I admire that you are writing from a perspective of real experience living in a communist country, something which academics and others cannot understand no matter the amount of honest contemplation or dedicated theoretical research. There is no substitute for the real.
I once lived with a Polish friend, a fellow student, who had a deep engrained hatred for Marx, Bolshevism, Communism, etc. to the point that he would become so enraged at the mentioning of these systems of political thought that you could not reason with him. I have noticed a deep emotional resentment towards Marxist theory, and believe I understand why as much as I am able through the medium of imaginative curiosity. I cannot help but notice though that these feelings are always of an anecdotal sort and they don’t really take any ‘Marxism’ or ‘Communist’ theory into account; it is mostly just an expression of justifiable grievance aimed at a corrupt, inefficient, and unusually brutal system of governance. ‘Marxism’ always acts as a proverbial scapegoat for political frustration.
A glance through any world history book will demonstrate how cruel and unusual regimes are nothing new under the sun, but that the paradoxical rhetoric and soul-deafening logic of Sino-Soviet Communism (particularly towards the very people it espoused to save) raises legitimate tautological concerns regarding the traditions of historical materialism.
Thanks to the landmark literary contribution of folks like Solzhenitsyn though, the West all but fell out of fantasy with Communism after the horrors of the Gulags and the state writ large were revealed to the world. He even writes about how the work they were doing was supposed to be a glorious renewal of society, but really it was just a slow painful march towards death.
The point I am stressing here, and elsewhere, is not that I am a supporter of Communism or a die-hard proponent of Marxist theory. I just stand for the truth. The only actual self proclaimed communist I know is Zizek, and even then I take everything he says with a grain of salt (like the skiing comment). It is that by having such an emotional attachment to the political identity of Marxism/Communism, you are closing yourself off from the important truths that it deals with. Again, it would be like eschewing the moral value and importance of the Ten Commandments because of The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc.
Just because ruthless power brokers cloaked their murderous actions under the guise of political idealism does nothing to take away from the original meaning of the document.
Do not read what others have wrote about Marx, Smith, Ricardo, etc.
Read them for yourself and then pass judgement. You may find more truth than you would care to admit, especially as someone economically inclined as per your previous writings.
And if you cannot bring yourself to read/understand them, then you should pass over in silence what you cannot comprehend.
Are you trying to pull a Wittgenstein on me?
If so, you are not doing a very good job completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting tractatus #7
I think I have a fairly solid understanding of Marxism and I hope to be able to expose its most foundational failing in this blog within this year.
As for the 'truth', just don't start me 😉
https://youtu.be/PWSx0bBiNIs?si=B2ntWyDknl-3EB42