RIP Sondra Dickens / Services on Monday

 
 

High school graduation photo of Sondra Dickens.

Sondra died a few days ago.

Service will be at

NEW WINE CHURCH
1425 S Brookhurst
Fullerton, CA 92833

10AM to 12 noon

Amanda, her daughter, is organizing.  714-917-5743.
 
 

Welcome to the LAST AMERICAN REVOLUTION

 

Welcome to the Last American Revolution

Re: HELP? -- Marx I vs II??

If you tell me which Lecture and Session, I'll relisten.  It's been about 38 years since I heard V50 and 35 years since I heard V201.

 

The gist of primary property is that Newton should be the richest person on the planet. How?  Galambos set up a natural estate.  As people paid Galambos royalties a piece would go to Newton's estate.  The fraction would be tiny but the $$ would be huge if everyone who used Newton's ideas paid.

 

How would they pay?  Companies like Boeing or Intel (in the 60s it would have been IBM and Xerox) would want access to the newest sources of knowledge.  By hiring the best and the brightest they would pay Newton indirectly.

 

Keep in mind that the 40+% government burden would dwindle, leaving plenty of money to pay for new and old knowledge.

 

There was even a mechanism, conceived by Gordon Smith, to base the new currency on something more durable than gold, meaning the cumulative value of human knowledge. Since the entire quantity of available gold could fit in the volume of the Washington Monument, its value would plummet if someone discovered a mountain of gold.  Knowledge-based currency would be harder to dilute.

 

The rule is that royalties should be whatever you are willing to pay voluntarily but should be non-zero.  Presumably you could pay Galambos and his shoulder accounts (reference to Newton's comment about seeing farther than others because he stood on the shoulders of giants)  a buck a year.

 

Back to Marxism.  The only distinctions I make are Pre and Post Soviet Union.  The original Communist revolution immediately failed.  Then tyrants like Stalin filled the void with a police state that used the imprimatur and mythology of Marxism to justify the oppression.  It's like the way monarchs claimed they ruled by divine right to sanction their authority.

 

I sometimes comment, "Marxism only has two problems.  It doesn't work in theory and it doesn't work in practice."

 

The theory came from Galambos.  He commented on the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  This doesn't work for the simple reason that needs are infinite and abilities are finite.   QED.

 

Actually my phrase is redundant.  Any worthwhile theory is derived from reality. 

 

Somewhere on the von Mises website are Robert LeFevre lectures.  He analyzed Marx's (the other Carl/Karl) manifesto.  According to LeFevre, Marx DID NOT advocate violent overthrow for countries with democracry.  Majority Rule opened the door for 80% of the poorest "class" to seize wealth from the upper 20%.  Or 90% could seize wealth from the top 10%.  This is one of the great flaws in the concept of democracy. 

 

In an effort to broaden the market beyond the group who heard V-50 35 years ago, I developed the phrase "The Last American Revolution" tm.  I might want to use the phrase as a book title. 

 

I also want to use the web for Virtual Meetups -- like Tea Parties but web-based.  If a 1,000 people pay me $10 a month, I could cure my fiscal crisis.

 

- CarlD  "TPaine2009"

 

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Lou & Bob Wynman <bobalou@wynman.com> wrote:

Carl, perhaps you could clarify one rather minor point?  After nine listenings to Jay's entire V-50 series, re-reading SIAA & listening to many sections of V-50 many additional times, I believe I finally understand V-50 ... with the exception of a clear understanding of the mechanisms of protection of primary property (which are supposedly revealed in the no-longer-available V-201, 'tho none of the V-201 grads I know have been able to 'splain it to me so that I understand it.).

 

I do have one slight area of confusion:  Marx I vs. Marx II:

 

While my conclusion is this: 

 

"communism (Marx I--read the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, 1848, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto).

 

fascism  (Marx II--read "Das Kapital", 1867, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital)"

 

But sometimes (most of the time), Jay refers to fascism as Marx I & communism as Marx II, which would mean that the Communist Manifesto is fascist & Das Kapital is communist.

 

I don't see where it makes much difference, since neither form of statism is a tolerable social structure, but I would like to get the distinction straight.

 

Many thanks again for your good work!

 

--bob

www.wynman.com