It's impressive when someone takes the time and hard work to check his beliefs, then alters them when you learn the truth about what you were for and what you were against. It's hard to admit you were wrong and then adopt the better idea based on the evidence you come across by research. Good for you!
Let's just K.I.S.S. -- CAPITAL is the excess of production over consumption. The question then is 'Who rightfully OWNS the excess - the producer or their envious neighbour? COMMUNISM is confiscation (not purchase or trade) of the excess by the covetous commune who would rather seize than produce.
I wish I could. The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that we should try to get away from the Marxist terminology, the Marxist framing of the debate.
That's a really good point, Zork. The Marxist framing distorts the real advantages of capitalism. Often, it is not capitalism that fails, but rather governments and propagandists who distort the picture. BTW....I note you made Lew Rockwell's daily articles last week. Way to go!
Exactly. Economic theory should be free of moral judgements.
I am thinking of writing something about the pros and cons of industrial vs subsistence farming in light of the Mexican revolution and its agrarian reforms at the beginning of the 20th century.
As for Lew Rockwell, I was hoping for that for a long time. I am a big fan of his work ever since his Katrina lecture https://youtu.be/tlF5RKQsVcw?si=ptk7GuRx7ioDXHLr which I listened to several times.
And how much propaganda and framing is involved in the use of translations involving a narrative hostile to one's own?
Replace "mode' with "means" and "expropriation" with "exploitation" or "appropriation", check their meanings in a dictionary, then ask yourself what Marx was trying to say, and which would better suit that intention. 'Dictionary mechanics' are the scourge of translations and the source of much "Humpty-Dumpty talk", whether accidental or deliberate.
I was thinking about that as I was writing it, I even considered trying to find the German original, etc.. but I gave up on it quickly. Since I do not speak German, it would have been a major task.
I also think that what's there is pretty much what Marx meant. It is consistent with the rest and all my memories of the Hungarian translation I once read. (just don't ask me to quote the Hungarian 😉)
I do not think that there is any deliberate mistranslation. All of Marx's translators were devotees... (I believe)
We all had our journeys through the ideas and it seems that there is quite a bit of an overlap between yours and mine.
It's impressive when someone takes the time and hard work to check his beliefs, then alters them when you learn the truth about what you were for and what you were against. It's hard to admit you were wrong and then adopt the better idea based on the evidence you come across by research. Good for you!
Let's just K.I.S.S. -- CAPITAL is the excess of production over consumption. The question then is 'Who rightfully OWNS the excess - the producer or their envious neighbour? COMMUNISM is confiscation (not purchase or trade) of the excess by the covetous commune who would rather seize than produce.
I wish I could. The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that we should try to get away from the Marxist terminology, the Marxist framing of the debate.
That's a really good point, Zork. The Marxist framing distorts the real advantages of capitalism. Often, it is not capitalism that fails, but rather governments and propagandists who distort the picture. BTW....I note you made Lew Rockwell's daily articles last week. Way to go!
Exactly. Economic theory should be free of moral judgements.
I am thinking of writing something about the pros and cons of industrial vs subsistence farming in light of the Mexican revolution and its agrarian reforms at the beginning of the 20th century.
As for Lew Rockwell, I was hoping for that for a long time. I am a big fan of his work ever since his Katrina lecture https://youtu.be/tlF5RKQsVcw?si=ptk7GuRx7ioDXHLr which I listened to several times.
Actually, capitalism evolves into peonage every time.
It sounds good, but I do not think that there is evidence to support your statement
And how much propaganda and framing is involved in the use of translations involving a narrative hostile to one's own?
Replace "mode' with "means" and "expropriation" with "exploitation" or "appropriation", check their meanings in a dictionary, then ask yourself what Marx was trying to say, and which would better suit that intention. 'Dictionary mechanics' are the scourge of translations and the source of much "Humpty-Dumpty talk", whether accidental or deliberate.
I was thinking about that as I was writing it, I even considered trying to find the German original, etc.. but I gave up on it quickly. Since I do not speak German, it would have been a major task.
I also think that what's there is pretty much what Marx meant. It is consistent with the rest and all my memories of the Hungarian translation I once read. (just don't ask me to quote the Hungarian 😉)
I do not think that there is any deliberate mistranslation. All of Marx's translators were devotees... (I believe)