Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I think it is important to realize that any system that takes hold and prospers, at least temporarily, has some claim to validity. Marx' "Communist Manifesto" at least was a trenchant critique of capitalism, when such criticisms were almost unknown.
|
Thanks for putting these two in the same paragraph.
I will start by saying that just because a system takes hold and prospers is not a sign that it has validity, but that it has people who are determined that since they have put themselves into it, they are going to be damned if it does not look good.
But putting the LRC and Marx in the same paragraph is insightful, even if you didn't realize it.
Seems that Marx was a master at using words with more than one meaning as a way to get the ignorant fired-up for his subterfuge. He saw that the word "exploit" was used in the economic sense to mean that a resource was used. If you work, your work is used. To an economist, that is to "exploit" your work. But the word is commonly understood to mean "used" in a negative sense, such as in an illicit manner. you are said to "exploit" the homeless by getting photo ops with them for political purposes but not actually intending to do anything about it. But this use of the word "exploit" is not what the economists are talking about.
But Marx makes sure that the word "exploit" is used in a way that makes the fact that you work for someone else seem as if you are being cheated. That fired-up a bunch of ignorant workers and we had a workers revolution.
Then came Nee and Lee. They used words just as masterfully as Marx. They did it well in Chinese. And despite the choppy "English-as-a-second-language" schtick, Lee was a master at using words in just as underhanded a way. He embellished as much as possible, then when it suited his aims, he carved away every meaning of words so that they only meant the one thing he wanted them to mean. "This simply means that . . . ."