For Marx Geeks ... RE: Marx Without the Realism
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:32:29 -0800
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:10 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: For Marx Geeks ... RE: Marx Without the Realism
> John Hall:
> >>We call someone working to maintain their quality of life while
> >>others internationally a capitalist.
> Al Diablito:
> >That last comment was just absurd.
No Al, it was a comment made by someone who knows what they were talking
about in general. However, perhaps I should have phrased it to make
sure everyone knew that was the RESULT no the INTENTION of the
> The irony here is that Marx likely would agree
> with Hall's comment, to a limited extent. Marx
> thought capitalism was unjust and that its
> internal contradictions would lead to a
> workers' revolution overthrowing it.
Marx used the term 'internal contradiction' but he didn't mean what most
people think he meant by reading him out of context.
Marx was speaking in terms of revolution. To him, it was the 'internal
contradiction' within a tadpole that forced it to become a frog. The
'internal contradiction' didn't imply the system wasn't working, only
that it would necessarily EVOLVE.
> I've been impressed with John Hall's comments
> in this thread.
Thanks. That does mean something from Russell.
> In most venues where there are
> conservatives, I get lambasted as a pinko when
> I try to explain Marx.
A conservative icon is Thomas Sowell.
Thomas Sowell used to be a Marxist.
He also wrote a book called 'Marxism' and if you can get the
conservatives to read that (since it is by an idol) they might learn