User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 14

  1. #1
    Alexander the Terrible yenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,755

    Default INTP explaining capitalism

    [YOUTUBE="HDvnSgJF4SE"]What is Capital[/YOUTUBE]

    [YOUTUBE="Duxkrv4fSe4"]What is Capitalism1[/YOUTUBE]

    [YOUTUBE="3MlZEfRhTo8"]What is Capitalism2[/YOUTUBE]
    The fear of poverty turns people into slaves of money.

    "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses"~Sulla

    Conquer your inner demons first before you conquer the world.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Marx wasnt an INTP. I dont think.

    That guy hasnt realised that beards are so out of fashion.

  3. #3
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That guy hasnt realised that beards are so out of fashion.
    He hasn't realized that the Labor Theory of Value is just as outdated, either.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #4
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Marx was ESTP, not INTP. His observations were keen, and his solution haphazard. Marx lamented against "armchair enthusiast" INTPs such as Adam smith, a true moral and reflective thinker. He thought value in the human mind was entirely arbitrary and not real. nor did he think it need be counted nor appreciated with delicacy.

    He was wrong.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    Marx was ESTP, not INTP. His observations were keen, and his solution haphazard. Marx lamented against "armchair enthusiast" INTPs such as Adam smith, a true moral and reflective thinker. He thought value in the human mind was entirely arbitrary and not real. nor did he think it need be counted nor appreciated with delicacy.

    He was wrong.
    Given his final infatuation with anthropological studies of earlier or pre-industiral/pre-modern agricultural communities I tend to think that Marx could have been an armchair enthusiast himself.

    I actually see Marx in a kind of radical conservative tradition like Southey who attacked the industrial system in a way which seriously prefigured socialists and was much more militant than anything they dreamt up themselves.

    On a sociological or meta-psychological level I just think that socialism was an attempt to realise the values and practices of an earlier time in the changed circumstances of industrialism. The metamorphisis caused it to rise, what exists now as socialism is often a weird kind of relic or an earlier age or hangover from the cold war and its not very good at explaining either capitalism or some of the social challenges and crisis which I think make either capitalism or socialism less viable than they once where.

    I dont think he was wrong to raise a hue and cry, I dont even think a lot of his "literature reviews" of other socialists and withering criticism where that wrong either but I think in prescriptive terms he was totally and utterly lousy.

    Pretty much this hegemony as theorist prevented the possibility of any kind of organic outgrowth or experiment which could render capitalism and capitalist crisis obsolete.

  6. #6
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Marx wanted to fix problems before he understood them, that was his sin against philosophy sir. he's like the union worker that attacks a delicate piece of machinery with a quarter mm wrench going "If i can just get the right motivation, i'll fix it all!"

    To call marx a radical conservative is a fucking UNDERSTATEMENT, but you went ahead and did it. ok, do that. I'm here.

    As a pragmatist i prefer to take a step back. Marx saw the fuckups, OUR FUCKUPS!!! and let's not forget, we have EPIC TRAGIC FUCKUPS to no end. we have multi billion/million earners alongside NON earners, all in between guardians that guard wealth as phat/fat(any diff?) as they do. Marx said "FIX THAT SHIT NOW, no matter WHAT!", and entire worlds ignored what they learned about gold, diamond, fair worth, silver, all on down the line til every last rabble was arguing over COTTON PANTIES in the Siberian world.

    again, I'll say it this way: marx saw the tragic DISCREPANCY. What he Never saw was the reason for why it began to begin with. That is his tragic sin against economics and reason.

    The human mind is a whorish, tragic, unfair slovenly thing, and it's the best thing we have. Marx expected something better.

    Adam Smith didn't. That's why he was wiser.

    If you don't get it, watch, and see. Smith was right. He was ALWAYS right.

    Marx was a fucking FOOL to expect our species could take care of itself. Adam Smith always knew it couldn't, and he set his guidelines henceforth. that's their only real difference.

  7. #7
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
    Last edited by nozflubber; 09-05-2010 at 09:02 AM. Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara

  8. #8
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    Marx wanted to fix problems before he understood them, that was his sin against philosophy sir. he's like the union worker that attacks a delicate piece of machinery with a quarter mm wrench going "If i can just get the right motivation, i'll fix it all!"

    To call marx a radical conservative is a fucking UNDERSTATEMENT, but you went ahead and did it. ok, do that. I'm here.

    As a pragmatist i prefer to take a step back. Marx saw the fuckups, OUR FUCKUPS!!! and let's not forget, we have EPIC TRAGIC FUCKUPS to no end. we have multi billion/million earners alongside NON earners, all in between guardians that guard wealth as phat/fat(any diff?) as they do. Marx said "FIX THAT SHIT NOW, no matter WHAT!", and entire worlds ignored what they learned about gold, diamond, fair worth, silver, all on down the line til every last rabble was arguing over COTTON PANTIES in the Siberian world.

    again, I'll say it this way: marx saw the tragic DISCREPANCY. What he Never saw was the reason for why it began to begin with. That is his tragic sin against economics and reason.

    The human mind is a whorish, tragic, unfair slovenly thing, and it's the best thing we have. Marx expected something better.

    Adam Smith didn't. That's why he was wiser.

    If you don't get it, watch, and see. Smith was right. He was ALWAYS right.

    Marx was a fucking FOOL to expect our species could take care of itself. Adam Smith always knew it couldn't, and he set his guidelines henceforth. that's their only real difference.
    And this post tells me all I need to know about you.

    Pretty much.

  9. #9
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    He hasn't realized that the Labor Theory of Value is just as outdated, either.
    Even though the value of labor isn't the entire worth of a given good, it certainly is a component of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Given his final infatuation with anthropological studies of earlier or pre-industiral/pre-modern agricultural communities I tend to think that Marx could have been an armchair enthusiast himself.

    I actually see Marx in a kind of radical conservative tradition like Southey who attacked the industrial system in a way which seriously prefigured socialists and was much more militant than anything they dreamt up themselves.

    On a sociological or meta-psychological level I just think that socialism was an attempt to realise the values and practices of an earlier time in the changed circumstances of industrialism. The metamorphisis caused it to rise, what exists now as socialism is often a weird kind of relic or an earlier age or hangover from the cold war and its not very good at explaining either capitalism or some of the social challenges and crisis which I think make either capitalism or socialism less viable than they once where.

    I dont think he was wrong to raise a hue and cry, I dont even think a lot of his "literature reviews" of other socialists and withering criticism where that wrong either but I think in prescriptive terms he was totally and utterly lousy.

    Pretty much this hegemony as theorist prevented the possibility of any kind of organic outgrowth or experiment which could render capitalism and capitalist crisis obsolete.
    Yup. Marx was an excellent critic and descriptor of capitalism. He had terrible plans.

    I like your characterization of him as a sort of quasi-luddite. It sort of makes sense - he saw communism as the original state of human affairs, and sought to revert to that state through progressive means. It's an interesting way to look at it, for sure.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Even though the value of labor isn't the entire worth of a given good, it certainly is a component of it.

    Yup. Marx was an excellent critic and descriptor of capitalism. He had terrible plans.

    I like your characterization of him as a sort of quasi-luddite. It sort of makes sense - he saw communism as the original state of human affairs, and sought to revert to that state through progressive means. It's an interesting way to look at it, for sure.
    Well, he started out as hostile to the luddites, suggesting, probably rightly, that capitalism could and would make increasing surpluses in wealth possible but when he couldnt figure out what the alternative to capitalism warts and all would be he did revert to studying things like the Russian Mir and telling his Russian supporters that was the way to go.

    It also only makes sense to describe Marx as a conservative opponent of capitalism if people are familiar with just how many conservative opponents of capitalism there where, especially in the UK, like Cobbett and Southey and just about every one of the poets.

    Now they wanted to preserve something which is pretty different from Marx's critique and Marx certainly wouldnt have shared their royalism and traditionalism, not the agricultural idle or cottage economy, but one of Marx's acknowledged major influences was Balzac, who was an arch-conservative novelist.

    There was a time when a more robust conservatism didnt mean simply a class struggle on the welfare dependent and all things liberal.

Similar Threads

  1. The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation, about capitalism
    By INTP in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 09:35 PM
  2. [INTP] intp excuse vs explaining
    By INTP in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-01-2009, 12:21 PM
  3. [INTP] Rant on INTPs
    By ygolo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 04-11-2008, 11:12 AM
  4. [INTP] Good things about INTPs
    By lastrailway in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 11:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO