A fantastic piece and really highlights the true horror of such a statement. Whoever said Ayn Rand villains are not realistic should now eat their hat.
This is an incredibly thorogh historical analysis. The connection between Marx's economic theories and the actual implementation under Lenin and Stalin is really illuminating. I'd never thought much about how the labor theory of value fell apart with the marginal revolution, but it makes sense that once economists understood that value comes from subjective judgments rather than labor-hours, the whole edifice crumbles. One thing I'm less sure aobut is whether every collectivist experiment has to end in violence and starvation, or if there's something specific about Marxist collectivism that makes it uniquely dangerous.
Collectivism always is necessarily coercive: the whole idea is that you have to sacrifice for the group regardless of your own judgment, desires, or interests. And as a result, it will always lead to economic stagnation and regress. How extensive the violence and how brutal the poverty depend on how consistently it is implemented, and how much it is able to ride on the technology and wealth of freer societies.
Congratulations, you have raised a straw man and defeated it. Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production. I don't think Mamdami or most any American or European democratic socialist is proposing that the government expropriate private enterprises, so it is unfortunate and misdirecting that they use the name socialist. To understand what the modern social democrat is about, read the Wikipedia article "Social Market Economy."
I didn't portray Marxism as representing Mumdani's preferred policies. But he praised collectivism and so I looked at the most influential form of collectivism, its theory and practice. And I said: this is what Mumdani must contend with if he wishes to praise collectivism.
An excellent elucidation of Marxism and it's consequences as collectivism. I understand much more from this the concepts of Marxism.
A fantastic piece and really highlights the true horror of such a statement. Whoever said Ayn Rand villains are not realistic should now eat their hat.
This is an incredibly thorogh historical analysis. The connection between Marx's economic theories and the actual implementation under Lenin and Stalin is really illuminating. I'd never thought much about how the labor theory of value fell apart with the marginal revolution, but it makes sense that once economists understood that value comes from subjective judgments rather than labor-hours, the whole edifice crumbles. One thing I'm less sure aobut is whether every collectivist experiment has to end in violence and starvation, or if there's something specific about Marxist collectivism that makes it uniquely dangerous.
Collectivism always is necessarily coercive: the whole idea is that you have to sacrifice for the group regardless of your own judgment, desires, or interests. And as a result, it will always lead to economic stagnation and regress. How extensive the violence and how brutal the poverty depend on how consistently it is implemented, and how much it is able to ride on the technology and wealth of freer societies.
Congratulations, you have raised a straw man and defeated it. Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production. I don't think Mamdami or most any American or European democratic socialist is proposing that the government expropriate private enterprises, so it is unfortunate and misdirecting that they use the name socialist. To understand what the modern social democrat is about, read the Wikipedia article "Social Market Economy."
I didn't portray Marxism as representing Mumdani's preferred policies. But he praised collectivism and so I looked at the most influential form of collectivism, its theory and practice. And I said: this is what Mumdani must contend with if he wishes to praise collectivism.