Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx - Phooey

Funny: I read ‘The Marx-Engels Reader’ (Robert C. Tucker, ed.) in an attempt to understand the radical left and their Marxist roots. Yet, my epiphany was reading the editor’s introductory explanation, specifically section I of the Introduction on pages xvii-xxii.

According to this, Hegel postulates a movement by mankind from self awareness to a higher plane of existence (God), or whatever he calls it. Feuerbach goes the opposite direction; he goes from God back down to the individual: care, love, and worship (humanism).

Marx makes the key equation: God = political economy = capitalism = accumulation of wealth = private property = man as simple commodity = producer = self estrangement. He then moves from here back down to the individual (socialization and release of the creative powers of the proletariat). He postulates a movement from Man’s self-estrangement back down to his natural state of existence.

Yes, I know: those of you who actually know something about philosophy are probably laughing into your sleeves by now. However, for the first time, I have that warm, fuzzy feeling that I have some inkling of understanding.

As a Buddhist, I view humanity as a dynamic, uncontrollable, and ever changing stream flowing through one of those Zen gardens. Sometimes, a calm, tranquil mirror. Sometimes, a happy, gurgling, babbling brook. Sometimes, a fierce, angry demon destroying everything in its path. Anyone who thinks that they can control this human river is a fool. As such, Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx are about as valid as The Great Pumpkin.

About Advertising

There has been a thought buzzing around the empty space between my ears for a while. It has finally landed and I can put words to it.
In the 70’s, consider an industry with several prominent competitors. At that time, a lack of advertising was considered to be a sign that there was real competition between them. The thought being advertising could only be afforded by a competitor who was well ahead of the others, and that they had such a large portion of the market, that they stood to benefit most from the ad. In the absence of advertising, the impression was one of intense competition. None of the competitors could afford ads, nor be assured that they would benefit from any effects of the ad rather than one of its competitors. One possible trick is for a monopoly to never advertise, implying that there is genuine competition in its industry.
It occurred to me that simply refusing to do ads or assorted media buys could, by itself, be a significant statement. Course, it could also be taken to be the actions of a poorly supported campaign. Advertising could be construed to be an act of desperation in a lopsided race.
I do not know if my decision to not do media buys up to this point is correct, but we shall see.