There is no economics in Marxist economics. Soviet biographies described Karl Marx as, “The scientist who discovered Surplus Value.” Many European scientific organizations, including in Britain, still insist on Retaining Marx among the scientists.
So if you were surprised at Climategate, don’t be.
Subsistence is the amount of goods and services required to keep workers alive and working. All goods and services beyond subsistence is Surplus Value.
Please note that little dot right after the word “Value.” It is called a period, and, as I have said before, it is very often the most important part of Bob Whitaker’s writing. What I have said is the entirety of Marxist “economics.” I count twenty-four words in the entire discussion of the economics in Marxist economics.
The reason Marx is said to have a Labor Theory of Value is because, according to his Great Scientific Discovery, since all value is produced by labor, all money that is needed to do anything but feed labor is Surplus. In the industrial society of his day, and far more in ours, this Surplus Value is huge.
So how is Marx’s great scientific discovery to be distributed. “The distribution of income,” says Marx, “is a POLITICAL decision.”
In Marxist terms, everything is a matter of class relationships and class relationship are entirely a matter of power. The only relationship which EXISTS in any society is the power relationships between classes, and that relationship is ENTIRELY a matter of distribution of goods and services.
Marx stated flatly that the family does not exist, the country does not exist. He advocated what was called Free Love because marriage was an economic relationship with a class purpose, and ONLY a class purpose.
Until you learn to understand this way of thinking, you cannot understand Political Correctness or anything else you hear from Mommy Professor’s acolytes.
There is no such thing as race relations in Marxism. The race with the most power is ipso facto the racist one. Orwell used Marxist language, with which he was very familiar, in 1984. The State in his novel was developing language so that no one could have the words to SAY anything that was not Goodthink, what we call Political Correctness.
Orwell envisioned a society in which one could only speak in Marxist terms. Anything else was racist or Sexist or nationalist, though his words were different.
A lot of people think Orwell was prescient. He wasn’t. He just understood Marxism.
#1 by BGLass on 03/19/2010 - 8:09 am
Historically, when czars, kings or kaisers “distribute surplus value,” and Jews aren’t distributors, the “politics” is “oppression” and “exploitation.” Those who collect wealth and distribute for votes, to maintain status quo/power, are making “progress.” So, surplus value is anything you can steal. Since the heart of a thief is a ‘hole that can never be filled,’ and they always want more and more– “class” morphed into other terms like “race.” Now race can be a good reason to steal, even from the poor, if whites are poor–and get reparitions. Way back when, Jacob stole a birthright and blessing, and Joseph enslaved Egypt by knowing about a famine, in other words, by insider trading and roping the population into debt. It seems Marx offered surplus value as a new tactic for “redistributive” measures (theft). Today, how many people are taught that Russia had the largest gold reserves in Europe? Or that the “revolution” led to years of civil war? Or that when Lenin “liberated” the workers savings from banks–there was a national strike? Unbelievable.
#2 by Dave on 03/19/2010 - 9:22 am
Starting out with words and ideas first and using them to explain the world is almost a universal trait.
Marxists have no monopoly on this. A Libertarian will tell you that “all government spending is confiscation” and really and truly believe it.
It doesn’t matter to the Libertarian that simple direct observation contradicts the statement. He doesn’t care. He has decided he is being robbed and that is that.
All of this is just animism. The attribution of malevolent spirits that explain how life is governed and what policy should be.
Animism is very seductive to intellectuals, far more than they recognize.
Even supposedly learned scientists do it when they design tests to test for developmental principles.
You have got to observe the world first, then explain it.
This means there is no substitute for doing your own thinking.
Run away from ideology like the plague.
#3 by BGLass on 03/19/2010 - 10:48 am
Idk. I had a teacher who would yell, over and over, “Words are both descriptive and productive.” This was BEATEN into my head. You simply cannot escape the world where so many WORDS ALREADY EXIST. And they can be producers of “self-fulfilling prophecy,” (that’s without any doubt). So, generating new words is important—putting out buzz, words, ways of framing things, that then make things happen. You produce a word that people repeat, and then they make a reality you want. Produce a framework of understanding, and they will naturally feed random “facts” through the screen you give them. Better to see words as inescapable, as well as symbols, and ideologies–and bend them, and use them, maybe. I just can’t see it any other way. Raw reality is just that–a sensation. Experience and words are in constant flux, imo.
#4 by Simmons on 03/19/2010 - 12:16 pm
Marxism is yesterday’s news, literally. That is why the 70 year old fossils of the Democratic party continue to try and control the future with yesterday’s thinking.
The white man is rushing by these fools faster than we can imagine. Bob notices because he has a longer term view that takes him out of the fossil category unlike the turds of congress.
Of course we have some laggard thinking whites, such as the professional anti-semites who refuse to ask any decent questions, the Afrikaaner who pines for Pik Botha, the conservatives who want diamonds from mud, but we are pulling them forward.
#5 by c-bear on 03/19/2010 - 2:04 pm
Now, when someone says this or that is not very politically correct, or “P.C.” I can say “Political correctness is Marxist.” and even stay on point if I so choose.