Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Amazed by Stossel

I was delighted to see part of a show by John Stossel, in which he acknowledged that "capitalism" came from Marx.

Thank God! I never thought this day would come.

Unfortunately, I don't think Stossel realizes the full implication of this little twist of philosophic history.

Marx was not an idealist. He was a dialectician. A dialectician gains power by creating conflict. Dialectics is a game in which a rogue promotes paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface; then rides the whirlwind of confusion into power.

Marx never describe communism beyond vague images of a paradise. His goal was to create a conflict with a belief that conflict would lead to a new stage of evolution.

Marx wanted to destroy the free market. So he created an unstable, top heavy view of the market which he detailed in Das Kapital.

Conservatives, being the greatest dupes in history, vigorously defend Marx's anti-thesis. This anti-thesis creates an oppressive top-down economy that people want to see destroyed.

By defending Marx's distortion of the free market, Conservatives systematically play into the radicals' hands and set up our nation for failure.

Contrary to the ramblings of modern intellectuals, neither Hegelian dialectics nor Marx's thesis/anti-thesis conflict are the foundation of the American experiment in self rule. The US Founders studied classical logic and applied classical logic to the question of liberty (Classical Liberalism).

By defending Marx's capitalism, conservatives surrender the battle field to the enemies of freedom. By accepting Marx's material dialectics as the foundation of society, conservatives set up America for failure.

In the Stossel show, John Stossel pointed out that Hollywood systematically projects false images on business and lamented that the left took the term "liberal" and turned it upside-down. The modern liberal thinks we will find freedom in slavery.

This happened because conservatives let the enemies of freedom define the underlying structure of the debate.

The path to restoring freedom starts by recognizing that Marx was the father of Capitalism and vigorously questioning the false images projected on the free market.

Marx goal was to set up a conflict between the ideals "capitalism" and "communism." We can break this spell by attacking capitalism as creation of the enemies of freedom and engaging in a discussion of capitalism and the free market.

So, I was delighted to hear that Stossel finally recognized that "modern capitalism" was a contrivance of Karl Marx who sought to destroy the Free Market.

Maybe, someday, Stossel will take the next step and realize that the defining conflict of our age is not between capitalism and communism but a conflict between the free market and capitalism (a false image projected on the market by the enemies of freedom).

An even better scenario would involve conservatives realizing that the problem is not "liberalism" but the perversion of liberalism.

The classical liberalism of the founders applied classical logic to the question of liberty. Modern liberals apply Hegelian dialectics to question of liberty and think slavery is freedom. It is a perversion of liberalism.

The Founders of the United States were liberals. They rose to defend liberty in face of the tyranny of monarchy. You can't get more liberal than that. The conservatives of 1776 were the ones defending big government in collusion with big business to the cost of the middle class.

To restore freedom we have to expose the intellectual dishonesty used by the enemies of freedom.


HomĂșnculo said...

Why don't you mention "socialism" in your expresions when you define the freedom?
Being socialist is not a crime. Is to recognise the freedom of a society and, as Karl Marx said, is to let the workers work individually for a social and free work.
Capitalism is collapsing, and it is not because Marx ideas, is because it has the seeds of its own destruction inside. It's a question of time (years, decades?). The freedom, the social structure is the natural environment to the human being.

please visit http://lokos-a-disfrutar.blogspot.com/

y-intercept said...

You are correct. Being a socialist is not a crime.

Neither is being a pervert.

The actions contemplated by the pervert are illegal. Putting the perverted acts into practice is called "child molestation."

The pervert might consider the acts some sort of higher love.

Socialists believe that their personal-selfrighteous gives them moral authority to steal from others.

Just as the molestors feel their higher lover justifies a negative act, socialists are wrong to believe that their self-righteousness justifies stealing from their neighbors.

y-intercept said...

PS: Marxism has had hegemony in economic cicles for over a century. It has directly killed hundreds of millions and reduced even more to poverty.

We have been able to break his spell because conservatives fail to understand that Marx was the father of capitalism.

We need to reject both the bastard children of Marx to restore prosperity.