Marxism is pseudoscientific

[emporsteigend]

Having read a lot about the philosophy of science over the years, I have found three criteria for science that tend to be widely agreed upon:



Prediction of novel fact
Parsimonious explanation of many data
Only moderate resistance to testing and falsification i.e. theories will not be discarded immediately in the light of contradictory evidence but will be modified or discarded in the face of persistent empirical contradiction.


I submit that Marxism has none of these qualities and feel that alternative approaches like behavioral economics and econophysics are more productive in explaining economic behavior. I am not a proponent of neoclassical economics either.

Thoughts?

[Tommy4ever]

Explain how Marxism has none of these qualities. Then we can have a discussion.

[emporsteigend]

The burden of proof is on you, really. For example: what novel predictions has Marxism made?

[Ocean Seal]

The burden of proof is on you, really. For example: what novel predictions has Marxism made?

Is Marx Relevant in the 21st Century?
According to New Labour, theories developed in the dark, satanic mills of the Victorian era are no longer relevant. It claims that there are good and bad bosses (mostly good). If we are 'reasonable', 'patient' and 'hard working' we can convince good bosses to pay us well. Yet the experience of working people and the statistics - even the government's statistics - show that this is absolutely untrue. In the two decades after the Second World War capitalism developed at a rapid pace. (This was possible because of exceptional and unrepeatable circumstances following the war, when whole swathes of Europe had been reduced to rubble.) It was in those post-war years that workers in the West won many of the benefits, such as the welfare state, that are being constantly eroded today.
In the early 1970s capitalism went into crisis internationally. Since then the capitalists have set about restoring their profits to the level of the post-war years. They have done this primarily by driving down the wages of the working class, in other words, by increasing their own share of the surplus product.
In the US, the most powerful economy in the world, the longest boom in its history has recently come to a close. Yet, even at the height of the boom - in 1999 - 80% of the population were no better off than they were 20 years ago and 50 million people (nearly 20%) were worse off.
Meanwhile, the capitalist class is drowning in riches. According to the US magazine, Business Week, if a US worker who earned $25,000 (£16,500) in 1994 received the same percentage income increase as the average boss over the same period he or she would now be earning $138,350. The US, the world's only superpower, contains the most extreme polarization of wealth.
On the one hand, it is normal for chief executives to receive phenomenal sums in bonuses - like the $45 million (£30 million) that Wendt received from Consecso Insurance just for turning up at his new job. However, the income of individual chief executives is chicken feed compared with the wealth and power of the owners of the big corporations.



Two US corporations alone - General Motors and Ford - exceed the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. In glaring contradiction with this unimaginable wealth the US also contains ever-increasing poverty: 0.5% of the population of the USA own as much as the bottom 90%.



But the US is only the leader in what is an international trend. In 2000 there were seven million people worldwide with liquid assets of more than $1 million - an increase of 18% in one year alone. In Britain the average income of a chief executive of a FTSE 100 company is a huge £643,000 a year. This means, by the way, that all but the most obese are literally worth their weight in gold!



New Labour argues that these individuals 'earn' their wealth with their talent and entrepreneurial skills. Yet in Britain there are a mere 392 people who sit on the remuneration boards adjudicating on the pay and bonuses of the top company directors of the 98 largest companies. Thirty directors sit on more than one remuneration board. This is a tiny club of wealthy people deciding how much more gold to heap on themselves and their friends and relatives. There were 6,600 millionaires in 1992 and now there are more than 47,000.



By contrast, as the house journal of the financial wing of the British ruling class, The Financial Times, commented:


"Wage inequality is greater than for 100 years... one in two less-skilled men is without work, and one in five households lack access to an earned income." Employment insecurity for those who do have jobs is at "the highest level for 30 years", according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
All the neo-liberal attacks on the living standards of the working class have been designed, at base, to increase the ruling class's share of surplus value at the expense of the working class. This has been achieved by decreasing the 'social wage' - cutting the welfare state. But it has also been carried out directly on the factory floor. Today the bosses take a much larger percentage of the surplus created by the working class than was the case in the recent past. As the American economist William Greider explains:


"In 1975, an average American family needed 18 weeks of earnings to buy an average-priced car; by 1995 the cost of the new car consumed 28 weeks of income." Globalization
This example is based on US car workers. Yet, many car plants internationally have been moved away from the US and Europe to areas where labor is far cheaper, such as Latin America and Eastern Europe. The same has happened in many other sectors. Greider describes the reasons why:

"American garment workers could make a shirt with 14 minutes human labor, while it took 25 minutes in Bangladesh. But the average US wage was $7.53 an hour, while in Bangladesh it was 25 cents, an edge that would not be erased even if the Bangladeshi wages were doubled or quadrupled. Or steel: US industry required 3.4 hours of human labor to produce a ton of steel, while Brazil took 5.8 hours. But wages difference was 10 to 1: $13 an hour versus $1.28." This demonstrates one of the ways in which the bosses were able to hugely increase their profits by lowering wages in the 1990s. However, in doing so they have also massively exacerbated the problems that the capitalist system is facing now, and will face in the future.
The Coming Crisis
Until recently the US economy was booming. Like Atlas it held up the world economy. This was a boom that massively intensified the inequalities of capitalism. It was also the precursor to recession: in the 12 months up to March 2002, US big-business profits suffered the biggest drop since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Despite this, at the beginning of 2002 most commentators were claiming that the US economy was on the road to recovery. As the collapse of WorldCom and the slide on the stock markets show, this was more than a little over-optimistic. Capitalism is a cyclical system and the current recession will, at a certain stage, come to an end, but the underlying systemic malaise will remain. Economic stagnation, mass unemployment and underemployment, and the general undermining of working peoples' living standards, are all capitalism has to offer in the 21st century. The most modern understanding of can be found in the writings of Marx.



Today the capitalists claim to have solved overproduction with techniques like 'just-in-time' production. Yet only a few years ago, massive overproduction was the major factor in the South-East Asian economic crisis which has decimated the living standards of the working class of the area. Overproduction is also at the root of the current international crisis. After 1997 the US was able to temporarily ameliorate the situation by acting as the 'buyer of last resort' for the world's goods. This is now coming to an end.



Even in instances where overproduction has been partially overcome, it is replaced by a crisis of overcapacity. That is when capitalism is only able to function by leaving a large proportion of productive capacity idle. In the European car market there was a massive 40% overcapacity in 1999.
This has been the primary reason for the merger mania that has swept the world car industry. In the full knowledge that some factories will have to close and some firms go to the wall, the world's car producers are slogging it out for markets in a fight to the death. This is what lay behind the mass slashing of jobs at Ford Dagenham, Vauxhall Luton and Longbridge.



The method by which the capitalists have restored their profits in the 1990s has laid the seeds for a catastrophic crisis. They have driven down the wages of workers in the West whilst simultaneously moving production to the ex-colonial countries where labor is cheaper. Inevitably, this is exacerbating the problems of overproduction and overcapacity.



On a global scale the working class receives a considerably smaller share of the value it creates. Therefore, it can buy back only a smaller percentage of the goods it produces. In the current economic crisis the capitalists' chickens are coming home to roost.



An additional factor in the 1990s US boom has been the massive overvaluation of stock markets throughout the world, but particularly in the US itself. This has been combined with a huge expansion of credit - or, as it is otherwise known, debt. In 1999 private savings in the US went negative for the first time since the 1930s.
In 2000 the total private-sector debt was around 130% of GDP, compared with less than 100% in 1929 when the stock market crash on Wall Street heralded the Great Depression of the 1930s. Credit, like elastic, can be stretched so far.



At a certain point, however, it will have to snap back into line with reality. The result is the collapse of companies like Enron and WorldCom as the 'astute' business practices of the 1990s are revealed as the reckless gambling of a terminally shortsighted capitalist class.
But capitalism's crises never affect only the billionaires and Wall Street traders. In fact in 2001, despite the world economic downturn, the number of millionaires still increased by 3%! The 'masters of the universe' may suffer a bit of a hangover as a result of their decade-long Wall Street party, but it is working people and the poor who will really feel the consequences.


Credit Socialist Alternative

[emporsteigend]

Power law distributions like those of wealth can be better predicted and explained by econophysical and agent-based models. In fact, since phenomena of power laws and criticality apply to many more systems than economies (e.g. earthquakes, epidemics, forest fires), these kinds of explanations are far superior to those offered by Marxism.

[danyboy27]

nevermind.

[danyboy27]

what are your claim to declare marxism unscientific?

[RGacky3]

The burden of proof is on you, really. For example: what novel predictions has Marxism made?


The tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, the huge growth of Capitalism, the rise of financial Capital, the growth of externalities, the growth of the rate of exploitation, the inherent instability of Capitalism, the internal contradictions of capital accumulation (evident in the crashes), the rising inequality, the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, the need for purpetual growth, and the insight that a slowdown leads to a crash? Basically the history of Capitalism.

People have claimed in the past that he did not see the raise in welfare states, unions and social securities and mixed economies, but as we're seeing in many of these situations, even with those things economies still suffer from what Marx laid out.

Now if you want to argue that Economics is'nt a science thats another argument, but Marxism is as scientific if not more scientific than any other school of economics.

[La Comédie Noire]

Power law distributions

What's that?

[emporsteigend]

The tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, the huge growth of Capitalism, the rise of financial Capital, the growth of externalities, the growth of the rate of exploitation, the inherent instability of Capitalism, the internal contradictions of capital accumulation (evident in the crashes), the rising inequality, the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, the need for purpetual growth, and the insight that a slowdown leads to a crash?

How do you quantify these figures? How exactly is the "growth of the rate of exploitation" measured? Your concepts are poorly operationalized.

Also I enjoin you to check out this book:

amazon.com/Why-Stock-Markets-Crash-Financial/dp/0691096309

Now if you want to argue that Economics is'nt a science thats another argument, but Marxism is as scientific if not more scientific than any other school of economics.

Are you familiar with all of them? I somehow doubt that.

[emporsteigend]

What's that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

see also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm sorry, but my mathematical knowledge is inadequate. Could you give me a layman's run down of power laws and how they explain income and wealth distribution? I've read Steve Keen's book and he was pretty sympathetic to behavioral and econophysics

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Haha nice one idiot. No ideology than Marxism has explained nature so realisticly. Which is the scientific ideology huh?Nazism which says kill all the Jews? Oh yeah really normal(for dumbasses). Marxism is a science itself.
Read a book called "Marxistische-Leninistische Philosophie" It is a book for students and young men.Explains in very detail the nature according to Marxism-Leninism
http://t.qkme.me/353fk7.jpg

[RGacky3]

How do you quantify these figures? How exactly is the "growth of the rate of exploitation" measured? Your concepts are poorly operationalized.

Also I enjoin you to check out this book:


The rate of exploitation is easy, productivity vrs wages.

THere are tons and tons and tons of books on the crash, and I was'nt just talking about the stock market, and most of the reasons, that are not austrian bullshit market fundementalism, take into account MAJORLY Marx's theories of the internal contradictions of capitalism, hell the whole concept of a self purpetuating demand shortage was one of Marx major concepts that is now used by Keynsians the world over to explain and predict the recession.

BTW stock markets can crash for many reasons, but a stock market crash and an economic disaster are not the same thing.

I suggest you read Marx Kapital 1 through 3 before you start spouting off against something you obviously know nothing about.


Are you familiar with all of them? I somehow doubt that.

I'm familiar with economics and many different schoos of thought within economics.

BTW, why don't you make some actual arguments against Marxism, and show that you have the slightest idea of what your talking about.

[danyboy27]

would you say seismology isnt a real science beccause most of the time this science is unable to predict earthquake on the long run?

[danyboy27]

what about volcanology or archeology?

[La Comédie Noire]

I actually found a pretty straight forward and simple guide on the Pareto Principle:

http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-pareto-principle-the-8020-rule/

I see nothing to disagree with and would only find issue with the Op's interpretation of the Pareto principle.

First she/he assumes financial reward is based on productivity, which is not the case and actually the 20/80 observation could apply really well to modern day corporations.

Most are very top heavy with 80% or some similar distribution focused on "the details" such as the realization of surplus value or simply inner company dynamics, while 20% of the revenue is in the actual manufacture of products. Thus the 20% pay for their own subsistence and the overhead costs that keep the 80% running.

I think it fits in perfectly with Marx's Tendency of the rate of profit to fall and Joseph tainter's work on the collapse of complex societies. So while it explains energy dynamics really well, I think it fails to consider the reality of social class, at least as the OP presents it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would agree with teh OP, actually. Marxism isn't a Science, in the way that physics, mathematics are.

I know it's trendy for people like Economic Historians and Political Scientists to become empiricists and use trendy econometric packages and then call their fields a science, but in reality, like Marxism, they are social sciences, not actually scientific in the formal sense.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yeah bro marxism is basically a social science so

[ZeroNowhere]

No, Marxism is scientific.

/debate

[Franz Fanonipants]

haha and fucking ngnm is there in the first post thanking this reactionary shitbag.

[La Comédie Noire]

I would agree with teh OP, actually. Marxism isn't a Science, in the way that physics, mathematics are.

I know it's trendy for people like Economic Historians and Political Scientists to become empiricists and use trendy econometric packages and then call their fields a science, but in reality, like Marxism, they are social sciences, not actually scientific in the formal sense.

Yeah, it is a conceptual framework which looks at empirical evidence and attempts to explain it. Which is why you can have 5 different competing schools of economic thought which all look at the same phenomena from different perspectives. In this regards, the OP's suggestion is in the same boat as Marxism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, it is a conceptual framework which looks at empirical evidence and attempts to explain it. Which is why you can have 5 different competing schools of economic thought which all look at the same phenomena from different perspectives. In this regards, the OP's suggestion is in the same boat as Marxism.

But Marxism is so difficult to pin down, as - if we are to take Marxism as the body of Marx's work as it was interpreted posthumously - it actually transcends Monography and branches into the areas of Economics, Economic History, History, Sociology and Political Science.

Really, I don't buy attempts to turn Marxism into a scientific subject on par with physics, mathematics and so on. The hypotheses within Marxism simply cannot be 'not rejected' with any sphere of confidence comparable to real scientific science.

At best, Marxism is - as you say - a conceptual framework whose Economics is heavily grounded in an intense ideological bias. As Marxists, we should admit this; Marxism does not transcend politics, it merely provides a far, far superior conceptual framework for the political revolution of society, and for society's economic organisation post-this revolution, than any other school of political thought hitherto.

[ZeroNowhere]

At best, Marxism is - as you say - a conceptual framework whose Economics is heavily grounded in an intense ideological bias.Not particularly. That would only be the case if Marx was a utopian socialist.


Political economy can only be turned into a positive science by replacing the conflicting dogmas by the conflicting facts, and by the real antagonisms which form their concealed background.

[Skooma Addict]

Certain arguments made by Marx are unfalsifiable.

[postanarchism]

You're right, the bullwork of Marxist thought is pseudo-scientific, less so than say romanticism or classical liberalism but it is not a hard 'science of society' as dogmatists would like to insist.

I think it's useful to divide Marx's ideas into three categories: 'science of society', class studies, and philosophy. This 'science of society' could meet the "standards" of science but few Marxists have ventured into this (I think GA Cohen and Louis Althusser deserve credit for at least attempting to isolate and 'scientize' the 'scientific' aspects of Marx's thinking).

Have you heard of Imre Lakatos? He attempted to merge Marx's science of society with Feyerbrand's philosophical anarchism and Popper's falsification.

[danyboy27]

You're right, the bullwork of Marxist thought is pseudo-scientific, less so than say romanticism or classical liberalism but it is not a hard 'science of society' as dogmatists would like to insist.

I think it's useful to divide Marx's ideas into three categories: 'science of society', class studies, and philosophy. This 'science of society' could meet the "standards" of science but few Marxists have ventured into this (I think GA Cohen and Louis Althusser deserve credit for at least attempting to isolate and 'scientize' the 'scientific' aspects of Marx's thinking).

Have you heard of Imre Lakatos? He attempted to merge Marx's science of society with Feyerbrand's philosophical anarchism and Popper's falsification.

Materialism could be considered a science. Its pretty solid to say that our lives are dirrectly affected by the living conditions in wich we have developped our being.

[postanarchism]

I would argue that materialism is more philosophy than science. I would define science (loosely) as the art and technique of studying relationships and conditions of relationships through contestable and peer-reviewed observations. More or less, it's a group coming together to agree to a set of rules for determining better or worse descriptions of natural or social phenomena and following these rules insofar as they serve the purpose of the project. So we see "revolutions" in science that upset existing rules but scientists push forward by finding new rules to agree on. Instrumental to this process is the concept of 'falsifiability', as it subjects everyone to the same rules and accepts a basic uncertainty concerning human knowledge.

Now, materialism couldn't really be a science because it's hypothesis 'all things that exist are material' could never be falsified.

[Thirsty Crow]

The burden of proof is on you, really. For example: what novel predictions has Marxism made?
Well ,the burden of proof is firstly on you, since we cannot know what do you think of as "Marxism" (as it is reasonable to assume that there are wildly inaccurate assumptions about it; so basically, you could be arging against a straw man). So by all means, please show us either what Marxism fundamentally is, or how does it fail to satisfy those three criteria.

[Misanthrope]

All social sciences are pseudo-scientific, economics... hell even biology can be argued as pseudo-scientific. Despite the derogatory connotation, it really doesn't mean shit.

[CommunityBeliever]

Edit: I wrote a rebel against pseudoscience post which summarises my views on this topic

[CornetJoyce]

Now, materialism couldn't really be a science because it's hypothesis 'all things that exist are material' could never be falsified.

"As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom. " Max Planck

[Kotze]

reactionary shitbag.How is econophysics reactionary? One of the things econophysics is known for is producing some models where very unequal wealth distributions develop — resembling those in the real world — as the outcome of random processes, nothing to do with hard work or being gifted. Now imagine such a model as the first thing people hear about in econ intro classes all over the world.

A person comes to the forum and asks about the predictive power of economic models. Statistics are for people who want to be trendy, is the answer (WTF). Oh, and also, you are reactionary. Would you all please stop with the "funny" pictures and shit comments.

[RGacky3]

The part of Marxism I'm interested in is his Analysis of Capitalism and his class analysis, i.e. his economics, in that sense his economics is only scientific as you believe economics can be scientific, which is really just about what definition of science is.

If you think Marxian economics is wrong, make arguments against it. (Marxian economics is the the same as socialist economics, there are classical economists that were socialists, institutional economists, keynsian socialists, mutualist socialists, even some neo-classical economists that are socialists).

[Franz Fanonipants]

How is econophysics reactionary?

how is coming into an ostensibly leftist forum and dismissing a social science as "psuedoscientific"?

go back to whatever hole you crawled out of with noxion comrade.

[emporsteigend]

I'm sorry, but my mathematical knowledge is inadequate. Could you give me a layman's run down of power laws and how they explain income and wealth distribution? I've read Steve Keen's book and he was pretty sympathetic to behavioral and econophysics

This article does a good job of explaining power law distribution with respect to the economy:

hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html


Haha nice one idiot. No ideology than Marxism has explained nature so realisticly.

Citation needed.


Which is the scientific ideology huh?Nazism which says kill all the Jews?

If I'm not a Marxist, I must be a jackbooted Nazi.

#logic


Oh yeah really normal(for dumbasses). Marxism is a science itself.

Citation needed.


The rate of exploitation is easy, productivity vrs wages

Which you quantify how? Show me some numbers.


THere are tons and tons and tons of books on the crash

Name some.


I'm familiar with economics and many different schoos of thought within economics.

How about agent-based modeling?


BTW, why don't you make some actual arguments against Marxism

I did. I pointed out why it's pseudoscientific.


would you say seismology isnt a real science beccause most of the time this science is unable to predict earthquake on the long run?

Earthquake forecasting would probably be pseudoscientific in that case.

I don't know much about seismology but I know that it can at least tell us why earthquakes occur around fault lines in a parsimonious, consilient way.


First she/he assumes financial reward is based on productivity

When did I say that?


I know it's trendy for people like Economic Historians and Political Scientists to become empiricists and use trendy econometric packages and then call their fields a science, but in reality, like Marxism, they are social sciences, not actually scientific in the formal sense.

Social sciences can be scientific in the way that natural sciences are.

One just has to try harder.


yeah bro marxism is basically a social science so

Well thanks for clarifying that.


No, Marxism is scientific.

/debate

According to you.


haha and fucking ngnm is there in the first post thanking this reactionary shitbag.

I'm a "reactionary shitbag" because I disagree with you.

OK.


Have you heard of Imre Lakatos?

Yes.


Well ,the burden of proof is firstly on you, since we cannot know what do you think of as "Marxism"

Nobody seems to agree on this.


All social sciences are pseudo-scientific, economics... hell even biology can be argued as pseudo-scientific.

I beg to differ. Especially now that we have things like molecular phylogenetics.


First of all mathematics is not a science.

No it is not.


Most of mathematics is founded upon a unfalsifiable counter-intuitive axiomatic systems such as ZFC.

You're missing the point.

Axioms are not meant to be falsifiable. Arguments proceeding from these axioms are deductive, not inductive. Falsifiability makes no sense in this context, only correct or incorrect deductive inference.

That being said, I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to say mathematics hasn't made a substantial contribution to civilization.


Furthermore, physics is full of utter crackpottery like time travel, wormholes, and parallel universes.

Regarding parallel universes:

space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

You use the findings of physics on a daily basis; by default, if you are reading this, you are using countless discoveries of physics, so try to be a little more appreciative.


Indeed. Most social sciences are pseudo-scientific as they have been effected by bourgeoisie ideology and eurocentrism.

Citation needed.


However, that is not the case for Marxism, which brings to light the conditions underlying the evolution of civilization, and is based upon actual scientific principles.

Citation needed.


In any field of study you should distinguish between the psuedo science and the actual science. In the case of the social fields, it is important to distinguish between the majority of psuedo-science, and the actually scientific principles of Marxism.

Citation needed.


If you think Marxian economics is wrong, make arguments against it.

See the OP.


how is coming into an ostensibly leftist forum and dismissing a social science as "psuedoscientific"?

Too bad I get to have my own opinion.

[La Comédie Noire]

When did I say that?

I probably should have put a qualifier before that sorry, but I assume you think income distribution is based on reward for productivity. Unless you believe something else?

I actually think econophysics can fit in well with Marxism because it admits to a wealth and income inequality and doesn't believe in perfectly rational agents.

[ZeroNowhere]

According to you.
Hey, you didn't reply to me with 'Citation needed'! It is good to have inspired such creativity on your part.

[emporsteigend]

I found the claim that other economic schools are "eurocentric and bourgeois" particularly baffling.

In what way are minimal (but powerful) agent-based models of economic phenomena biased towards Europeans or the bourgeois?

Surely non-Europeans and the proletariat recognize agency. Surely things like power laws also apply to these same parties, since they appear to apply broadly across nature, even where humanity is not involved.

[emporsteigend]

I probably should have put a qualifier before that sorry, but I assume you think income distribution is based on reward for productivity. Unless you believe something else?

It's probably a combination of productivity and luck of the dynamics of the economy.


I actually think econophysics can fit in well with Marxism because it admits to a wealth and income inequality and doesn't believe in perfectly rational agents.

Why even bother with Marxism when there are superior testable, quantitative theories about these topics?


Hey, you didn't reply to me with 'Citation needed'! It is good to have inspired such creativity on your part.

Yeah. Now give me your citation.

[RGacky3]

Which you quantify how? Show me some numbers.


http://joejolly.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/42041256-wages-prod-416gr-4.gif?w=416&h=280

https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif

Pretty simple really.


Name some.



Freefall by Joseph Stiglits, Capitalism hits the fan by RIchard wolff, The Enigma of Capital by David harvey, 23 things they don't tell you about Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang, Aftershock by Robert Reich, Irrational exhuberance by Robert Schiller.

There are some from tons and tongs of different economic view points.

Its not that hard to find.


How about agent-based modeling?


Computer modeling? As far as I know thats not a school of economic thought ..... If you want to discuss economics discuss economics.


I did. I pointed out why it's pseudoscientific.


You did'nt point out shit, Say WHAT MARX SAID ABOUT CAPITALISM, and why it was wrong? Point out specific analysis of Marx and explain why that analysis is wrong.

You hav'nt done ANY of that, and I"m assuming its because you don't know any of Marx's analysis.


See the OP

No arguments there.

What analysis of Capitalism did marx give that was wrong? Specifically?

If you can't do that then you don't have an argument.

I'm sure your very clever with mathmatic computer modeling, but that does'nt make you good at economics much less marxian economics.

[emporsteigend]

His prediction of socialist revolution has certainly fallen flat. I'm arguing against evolutionary psychology elsewhere but I'll be back to address other claims of yours.

[RGacky3]

His prediction of socialist revolution has certainly fallen flat. I'm arguing against evolutionary psychology elsewhere but I'll be back to address other claims of yours.

Well A: We don't know yet, and B: I mean his analysis of Capitalism i.e. his economics.

make arguments against his economic analysis of capitalism (which is over 90% of what he wrote about, he barely wrote about socialism or communism at all.)

[NGNM85]

haha and fucking ngnm is there in the first post thanking this reactionary shitbag.

To paraphrase Trotsky; it doesn't matter who said it, it matters that it's true. I haven't seen any evidence that this individual is a reactionary, but that isn't necessarily relevent. If you ever say anything insightful, or interesting, I'll Thank it.

[emporsteigend]

Pretty simple really.

What is the context of these graphs? Do they apply to all countries or just the USA?


Computer modeling? As far as I know thats not a school of economic thought ..... If you want to discuss economics discuss economics.

you are misinformed:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_economics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent-based_computational_economics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econophysics


What analysis of Capitalism did marx give that was wrong? Specifically?

If you can't do that then you don't have an argument.

According to SEP:


In [I]Capital Volume 3 Marx does indeed make the prediction that the rate of profit will fall over timeis that true?

I also don't think the terms of the labor theory of value are adequately operationalized

[RGacky3]

What is the context of these graphs? Do they apply to all countries or just the USA?


Its for the United states, but the point stands.


you are misinformed:


No I am not, methods of measuring interactions using computer models is not a school of economics, its a tool that you can use in the context of economics.

Anyway, its besides the point.


is that true?


Yes, but its a very specific idea, its the TENDANCY for the rate of profit to fall, and Marx applied it only to productive industry, (not finance capital not merchant capital), and its been proven correct in the sence that over time the rate of profit for industrial capital has slowly gone down.

Now he points out this as a tendancy within a free and competative market, there are things that can counteract this, but the tendancy is still there and all other things being equal it goes down. Its been seen actually in practice as industrial capital has been overtaken, overtime, by merchant capital, finance capital and intellectual capital.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html, heres a little "for dummies" thing I wrote on it. Basically it has to do with productivity going up and competativeness driving down prices, and as labor drops the space for excess surplus drops as well.



I also don't think the terms of the labor theory of value are adequately operationalized

The Labor theory of value is not Marx's idea, it came from adam smith and David ricardo, infact all the Classical economists generally agreed with it, which is basically, supply and demand being equal, what the value of something would be, its also operationalized, especially in advanced accounting. Infact you can basically track prices (for commodities) overall rise and fall based on the labor input, unless you have some supply and demand irregularities, which you often do, but the tendancy for the price to reflect basically the value is still there in many commodities that don't have large supply/demand inbalances.

[RGacky3]

BTW, its pretty damn arrogent to come to a leftist forum and straight up say "MARXISM IS WRONG," when you don't know a thing about it, considering you asked about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing about that, but there is something wrong with having the arrogance to proclaim something is wrong without knowing about it.

A little humility is needed when you don't know a lot about what your claiming is "false."

[emporsteigend]

Its for the United states, but the point stands.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias#Sampling_bias



No I am not, methods of measuring interactions using computer models is not a school of economics, its a tool that you can use in the context of economics.

you're quibbling

what school of economics does agent-based modeling exist under


Yes, but its a very specific idea, its the TENDANCY for the rate of profit to fall, and Marx applied it only to productive industry, (not finance capital not merchant capital), and its been proven correct in the sence that over time the rate of profit for industrial capital has slowly gone down.

numbers for this claim


The Labor theory of value is not Marx's idea, it came from adam smith and David ricardo, infact all the Classical economists generally agreed with it, which is basically, supply and demand being equal

such equilibria are rare, if they exist at all

[emporsteigend]

BTW, its pretty damn arrogent to come to a leftist forum and straight up say "MARXISM IS WRONG," when you don't know a thing about it, considering you asked about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall.

well, where are your numbers?

[RGacky3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias#Sampling_bias


Really? So me picking the United States ... is sampling bias??? I'm not going to do more research unless you claim that this is false overall for advanced capitalist countries (not social-democracies), and then agree to apologise after I show you are wrong.

Thats a bullshit claim that I'm using sampling bias by picking the United States .... A: I'm from there, B: Its the most advanced capitalist nation that is ideologically the most capitalist.


you're quibbling

what school of economics does agent-based modeling exist under


Read the article you posted, many.


numbers for this claim


Claim that I am wrong, that the self-evident fact I stated is wrong, then I'll look up the numbers for you. Do you really think that the share of profits for industrial capital has NOT gone down?


such equilibria are rare, if they exist at all

Numbers ....


well, where are your numbers?

http://marxists.org/archive/harman/2010/xx/husson4.jpg

This one is ALL industries, not just manufacturing.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Profits_Finance_vs_Manufacturing.jpg (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Profits_Finance_vs_Manufacturing.jpg)
http://www.isj.org.uk/images/115/115harpro2.jpg

[RGacky3]

And don't give me that sampling bullshit, if I had picked ... Equatorial guinea, or the Congo perhaps you'd have a point, but objecting to the United States, the Capitalist super power of the world is bullshit, infact we also have to take into account that the US has major economic imperial power (the ability to export costs and import value, and to dump externalities on other countries and extract value from them), so its not just an internal capitalist nation.

[RGacky3]

(Btw, that jump in profitability from 2002 to 2007, was an asset bubble)

[pastradamus]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias#Sampling_bias




This Wikipedia entry is absolutely weightless. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that what was posted to you by gacky is false. Sampling bias can happen ANYWHERE and can be applied to any graph, this however does not prove even one little bit that there was a bias or indeed and untruth in the Graph's and figures provided to you.

I've seen those figures provided time and time again and I have yet to see a capitalist successfully refute them.

Another thing, please stop acting in such a condescending manner. Also, stop presenting opinion as fact.

[Skooma Addict]

Numbers ....

Do you think in the real world, that supply actually literally equals demand?

[emporsteigend]

Really? So me picking the United States ... is sampling bias???

yeah


I'm not going to do more research unless you claim that this is false overall for advanced capitalist countries (not social-democracies)

a self-professed Marxist told me European countries are all "capitalist"

who am I to believe?

you guys never agree on anything


Thats a bullshit claim that I'm using sampling bias by picking the United States .... A: I'm from there

so?


B: Its the most advanced capitalist nation that is ideologically the most capitalist.

that's debatable


Claim that I am wrong, that the self-evident fact I stated is wrong

self-evident?


then I'll look up the numbers for you. Do you really think that the share of profits for industrial capital has NOT gone down?

maybe it has; maybe it hasn't

I don't know



Numbers...

[images]

the middle of these is specific to the US

the other two are from potentially biased socialist websites and until you give me the original source for these figures, I'm going to suspect clever misuse or fabrication of statistics


And don't give me that sampling bullshit, if I had picked ... Equatorial guinea, or the Congo perhaps you'd have a point, but objecting to the United States, the Capitalist super power of the world is bullshit

if you focus in on one country that's not terribly representative of all the world's countries, you are committing sampling bias



infact we also have to take into account that the US has major economic imperial power (the ability to export costs and import value, and to dump externalities on other countries and extract value from them), so its not just an internal capitalist nation.

have you considered that declines in profits from manufacturing might be because we hardly make anything anymore?

[RGacky3]

Do you think in the real world, that supply actually literally equals demand?

No, but if this dude is going to ask for numbers for self evident stuff, then he better cought up numbers.

[emporsteigend]

This Wikipedia entry is absolutely weightless. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that what was posted to you by gacky is false. Sampling bias can happen ANYWHERE and can be applied to any graph, this however does not prove even one little bit that there was a bias or indeed and untruth in the Graph's and figures provided to you.

you're missing the point

statistical abuse makes it possible to lie with the truth

focusing on the US alone, an unrepresentative country, is lying with the truth


Also, stop presenting opinion as fact.

what "opinions" have I presented as fact?

[emporsteigend]

No, but if this dude is going to ask for numbers for self evident stuff, then he better cought up numbers.

ah yes, the "everybody knows" fallacy

it's obviously true

you don't have to ask questions

"everybody knows" it

[RGacky3]

a self-professed Marxist told me European countries are all "capitalist"

who am I to believe?

you guys never agree on anything


They are, but for the sake of simplicity, its easier to test more "pure" capitalist countries (i.e. ones where the internal contradictions are not take out by nationalizations, co-determinations or other things), i.e. to study capitalism its better to study more privatized, for profit, market based forms of capitalism.


yeah


Yeah, then your being irrational.


that's debatable


Well its the richest and has been the world model for neo-liberal capitalism.


self-evident?


Yes, that manufacturing as an industry has a smaller share of the economy, anyone could tell you this.


the middle of these is specific to the US

the other two are from potentially biased socialist websites and until you give me the original source for these figures, I'm going to suspect clever misuse or fabrication of statistics

If your not going to accept numbers and facts,

and if your not going to offer up ANY counter arguments, then just leave.

All you've done here is embarrased yourself with lack of knowledge of Marxism after making the claim its wrong.

Then ask for facts for shit, then just dismiss the facts. (NONE of these were form socialist websites, and the facts are written down there.)

[RGacky3]

ah yes, the "everybody knows" fallacy

it's obviously true

you don't have to ask questions

"everybody knows" it

Except I showed you the statistics, and its self-evident ANYWAY, just go outside and ask anyone, if manufacturing is on the decline. But Even for someone like you, there are statistics and I showed you them.


statistical abuse makes it possible to lie with the truth

focusing on the US alone, an unrepresentative country, is lying with the truth


You hav'nt made ANY arguments, not 1, you hav'nt presented ANY facts, not 1, you hav'nt even refuted ANY arguments AT ALL, not 1, you hav'nt even tried to make an argument.

So until you do, I think its fair for everyone to assume your a clown with nothing substancial to say.

[emporsteigend]

They are, but for the sake of simplicity, its easier to test more "pure" capitalist countries (i.e. ones where the internal contradictions are not take out by nationalizations, co-determinations or other things), i.e. to study capitalism its better to study more privatized, for profit, market based forms of capitalism

as far as I know, government spending is a large percentage of US GDP

you're tripping over yourself here


Well its the richest and has been the world model for neo-liberal capitalism.

it's also not representative of the world at large



Yes, that manufacturing as an industry has a smaller share of the economy, anyone could tell you this.

ah yes, anybody could tell me, that's why you don't need evidence


If your not going to accept numbers and facts

I want a representative sample of countries from a reputable source

I want explanatory text too

rather than just a picture and maybe a blurb to explain it

is that too much to ask for?


Then ask for facts for shit, then just dismiss the facts. (NONE of these were form socialist websites, and the facts are written down there.)

the first one is from marxists.org

the third is from isj.org.uk, International Socialism Journal

the second is from Wikipedia which I'm more willing to trust but only concerns the US

if you don't believe me you can do "Copy Image Location" or whatever (I'm using firefox) and paste them into a new window or tab

[Azraella]

that's debatable


Ok. That's debateable. Fine.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-wealth-gap-between-young-old-widest-ever-050259922.html

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-appleby-wealth-versus-income-20111107,0,5865891.story

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

We know what the fuck we're talking about. Now stop being disingenous and make a fucking argument against Marxian economics.

[emporsteigend]

why are none of you able to give me a representative sample of the world's countries?

lady_catherine, notice that all the links you just posted have to do with the US alone?

am I getting through here?

[emporsteigend]

psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2009/representative-sample

"A small group whose characteristics accurately reflect those of the larger population from which it is drawn."

don't you see how having a sample size of n = 1, and an unusual member at that, skews the results?

[RGacky3]

as far as I know, government spending is a large percentage of US GDP

you're tripping over yourself here


Over 50% Military spending, and government spending is not at all indicitive of being less Capitalist. If you nationalize something, institute workers control, or something like that perhaps, government spending has and always will be, an integral part of Capitalism.


ah yes, anybody could tell me, that's why you don't need evidence


Except I showed you the evidence moron.


I want a representative sample of countries from a reputable source

I want explanatory text too

rather than just a picture and maybe a blurb to explain it

is that too much to ask for?


Yes, why don't you post why my graphs are WRONG, what is WRONG about them, and then put up your own counter facts, from other countries?


the first one is from marxists.org

the third is from isj.org.uk, International Socialism Journal

the second is from Wikipedia which I'm more willing to trust but only concerns the US


The info from those graphs come from governmental and statistical sources.

[RGacky3]

why are none of you able to give me a representative sample of the world's countries?

lady_catherine, notice that all the links you just posted have to do with the US alone?

am I getting through here?


We spent time looking up information to back our claims.

either

A: make an argument.
B: Post some facts, or counter facts.
C: Counter our argument somehow.
D: Piss off.

I'm not gonna search around for more information unless you do any of those things, the fact that you think the US is not representative of Capitalism is idiotic at best.

[emporsteigend]

Over 50% Military spending

OK.

so?

that's still government spending

and military spending does NOT work according to free-market policies


and government spending is not at all indicitive of being less Capitalist. If you nationalize something, institute workers control, or something like that perhaps, government spending has and always will be, an integral part of Capitalism.

your definition is very unclear

you said "pure" capitalism is "privatized"

then you said government spending can be capitalist

make up your mind


Yes, why don't you post why my graphs are WRONG, what is WRONG about them, and then put up your own counter facts, from other countries?

that's not my responsibility

burden of proof is on you


The info from those graphs come from governmental and statistical sources.

namely?

what "statistical sources"?


We spent time looking up information to back our claims.

either

A: make an argument.

I did, namely that you have a sample size of ONE

that's pathetic


I'm not gonna search around for more information unless you do any of those things, the fact that you think the US is not representative of Capitalism is idiotic at best.

it's not representative of the world's countries, which is the population being drawn from

[Azraella]

Hahaha. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

[RGacky3]

your definition is very unclear

you said "pure" capitalism is "privatized"

then you said government spending can be capitalist

make up your mind


The government spending money on private corporations, is still capitalism, the US economy is overwhelmingly private, and government spending goes mostly to private contractors.


that's not my responsibility

burden of proof is on you


You said Marxism is wrong, now say WHAT he was wrong about, and give me arguments WHY he was wrong about it, you brought up the tendancy of hte rate of profit to fall, I gave you logical explinations, and empirical evidence.

So far you hav'nt given me shit.

So again.

A: make an argument.
B: Post some facts, or counter facts.
C: Counter our argument somehow.
D: Piss off.

[emporsteigend]

Hahaha. www (dot) globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

I'm well aware of the power law distribution of wealth

what does this have to do with allegedly declining profits?


The government spending money on private corporations, is still capitalism, the US economy is overwhelmingly private, and government spending goes mostly to private contractors.

but the market so arranged isn't very competitive

it's not a real free market


You said Marxism is wrong, now say WHAT he was wrong about, and give me arguments WHY he was wrong about it, you brought up the tendancy of hte rate of profit to fall, I gave you logical explinations, and empirical evidence.

you gave me perhaps somewhat dubious evidence from only one country

try harder

ps you still haven't disclosed where those graphs originally came from other than that they were from some "government and statistical resources"

where are they from huh?

[RGacky3]

I did, namely that you have a sample size of ONE


Of the biggest capitalist economy in the world

Anyway, heres the second biggest capitalist economy China (http://www.seruc.com/bgl/paper%202006/Zhao-Zhang.pdf), which actually should be much slower, considering its a brand new capitalist country and that tendancy only happens after a capitalist economy has become advanced.

[RGacky3]

it's not a real free market


No true scotsman argument :rolleyes:.

anyway.

A: make an argument.
B: Post some facts, or counter facts.
C: Counter our argument somehow.
D: Piss off.

[emporsteigend]

Of the biggest capitalist economy in the world

you just admitted that the US is an exceptional country in the world

that's what makes your sample extremely biased

ps a sample size of 1 is never much good


Anyway, heres the second biggest capitalist economy China, which actually should be much slower

slower at what


No true scotsman argument :rolleyes:.

yeah

but not really

where's your source for the claim that most US government spending goes to private contractors btw?

[Azraella]

You know what? I'll just step out of this thread. The OP isn't here to learn but rather piss people off.

[emporsteigend]

maybe I'd piss you off less if you didn't refuse to understand the barest rudiments of statistical sampling theory

[Skooma Addict]

No true scotsman argument :rolleyes:.

Lol, you cannot call the U.S. Military complex a free market. It isn't at all.

[La Comédie Noire]

Why even bother with Marxism when there are superior testable, quantitative theories about these topics?

It's not really a theory though, it's an observation about statistical data. It is a fact in search of a theory to explain it.


It's probably a combination of productivity and luck of the dynamics of the economy.

I'd agree that there is a degree of chance involved in the economy, but I would deny that productivity has anything to do with compensation. That's the neoclassical explanation for inequality, a school of thought you said you were outside of.

[emporsteigend]

It's not really a theory though, it's an observation about statistical data. It is a fact in search of a theory to explain it.

hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html

are you saying this isn't a theory?


I'd agree that there is a degree of chance involved in the economy, but I would deny that productivity has anything to do with compensation.

why?

[La Comédie Noire]

Yes.


Despite all the attention, however, Pareto's distribution has, from a mathematical standpoint, stubbornly defied explanation.

There is a trend for wealth to flow upward and for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, nothing Marx didn't already say himself, but this article does not explain why that would be so except to say that the wealthier your network is the more likely you are to be wealthy, which is not a novel fact.



why?

Because there are plenty of cases where productivity has increased, but wages have remained the same or even fallen. Not to mention treating the labor market like any other commodity market is just wrong.

[ZeroNowhere]

maybe I'd piss you off less if you didn't refuse to understand the barest rudiments of statistical sampling theory
Oi. You're a guest here. Behave.

[Pretty Flaco]

Marxist thought was a precursor to many modern social sciences. I know that Marx specifically had a large influence on sociology.

[emporsteigend]

There is a trend for wealth to flow upward and for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, nothing Marx didn't already say himself, but this article does not explain why that would be so except to say that the wealthier your network is the more likely you are to be wealthy

that's not what it says

you misread it


Because there are plenty of cases where productivity has increased, but wages have remained the same or even fallen.

so far the evidence for this has been limited to the USA (sample size n = 1)

that's not satisfactory

[emporsteigend]

Marxist thought was a precursor to many modern social sciences. I know that Marx specifically had a large influence on sociology.

a lot of sociology has methodological issues

even a left-wing philosopher like Mario Augusto Bunge who might be inclined to accept pronouncements stemming from Marxism casts doubt on the scientific status of a lot of sociological research

[Rafiq]

If you think Marxian economics is wrong, make arguments against it. (Marxian economics is the the same as socialist economics, there are classical economists that were socialists, institutional economists, keynsian socialists, mutualist socialists, even some neo-classical economists that are socialists).

'Socialist economics' doesn't exist. the economic wing of Marxism, like you said, is an analysis of capitalism.

You can adhere to Marxian economics and even call yourself a Marxist and still be in favor of capitalism.

[Rafiq]

To paraphrase Trotsky; it doesn't matter who said it, it matters that it's true. I haven't seen any evidence that this individual is a reactionary, but that isn't necessarily relevent. If you ever say anything insightful, or interesting, I'll Thank it.

A thanks from NGNM85 is one of the most insulting things that could happen to you.

[Yuppie Grinder]

SOMEONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE WORLD THE SAME WAY AS ME THEIR AN IDIOT

I'd say in this huge marxist movement encompassing countless individuals and ways of understanding society, their are scientific and un-scientific elements.

[emporsteigend]

SOMEONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE WORLD THE SAME WAY AS ME THEIR AN IDIOT

I'd say in this huge marxist movement encompassing countless individuals and ways of understanding society, their are scientific and un-scientific elements.

so, in other words, it's all subjective maaaaaan *bubble bubble bubble*

[La Comédie Noire]

that's not what it says

you misread it



A multimillionaire, for example, will not ordinarily sweat losing a few thousand dollars in the stock market, but the same loss would likely be catastrophic for a single parent trying to raise her son while putting herself through college. The value of money depends on how much one already has, and consequently wealthy people tend to invest more than the less wealthy.

The more wealth you have, the more you will have to invest beyond consumption and the more you invest the more chance you have of making more. Wealth begets more wealth.


Specifically, the two researchers found that the greater the volume of money flowing through the economy and the more often it changes hands, the greater the equality. Conversely, the more volatile investment returns are, the richer the rich tend to get.

The richer the network your money flows through the better the chance you have of making money and the more risky the investment the better chance you have of making money and only those with prior wealth can afford to make those investments

There is really not anything here that's controversial or contrary to Marxism.

[emporsteigend]

The more wealth you have, the more you will have to invest beyond consumption and the more you invest the more chance you have of making more. Wealth begets more wealth.

that's not what you said


There is really not anything here that's controversial or contrary to Marxism.

the question then is: why should I accept Marxism if there are theories that (allegedly) say the same thing but in a sharply quantitative way

also if the work is of no original merit then why is it cited by 224 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15143623959591247798&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en)?

perhaps you had better read the original paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374)

[ZeroNowhere]

'Socialist economics' doesn't exist. the economic wing of Marxism, like you said, is an analysis of capitalism.

You can adhere to Marxian economics and even call yourself a Marxist and still be in favor of capitalism.
That would only work if Marx kept his analysis and theoretical framework on one side and was just a socialist based on utopian principles as a sort of add-on.

[Franz Fanonipants]

can we restrict this asshole already please

e: and noxion while we're at it cus

[Rafiq]

That would only work if Marx kept his analysis and theoretical framework on one side and was just a socialist based on utopian principles as a sort of add-on.

No. Marx saw socialism as the movement that represented the interests of the proletariat, the only class, he saw, capable of ending capitalism.

I'm sure there are members of the Bourgeoisie(capitalists) who know Marx's economic analysis was completely correct.

[emporsteigend]

can we restrict this asshole already please

why are you so keen on censoring people?

[Franz Fanonipants]

why are you so keen on censoring people?

because i'm not a liberal who thinks that everyone has something important to say.

you obviously have no desire to understand marxism as a framework of analysis (note, not scientific inquiry). therefore any discourse that could be had with you will go nowhere. until such a time that you can at least parse some of that discourse, like ngnm you ought to be restricted.

[emporsteigend]

because i'm not a liberal who thinks that everyone has something important to say

that's awfully fascist of you


you obviously have no desire to understand marxism as a framework of analysis (note, not scientific inquiry)

why shouldn't I expect economic theories to be scientific?

[ZeroNowhere]

why are you so keen on censoring people?
You're mostly posting in here anyway, so it's not so much a matter of censoring you as of dissociating ourselves from you.

[Azraella]

that's awfully fascist of you


Free speech is bourgeois :laugh:



why shouldn't I expect economic theories to be scientific?


Because economics is not scientific in the traditional sense. It's at best a social science with flawed methodology.

[emporsteigend]

Because economics is not scientific in the traditional sense. It's at best a social science with flawed methodology.

are all economic theories bound to be unscientific?

or are you just talking about neoclassical economics?

[postanarchism]

Quantitative analysis, econophysics, and econometrics are far more scientific than Marx's economics... but these types of economic studies ignore something two crucial discoveries by Marx: economic systems tend toward instability and the distribution of power plays a primary role in this instability.

[emporsteigend]

Quantitative analysis, econophysics, and econometrics are far more scientific than Marx's economics... but these types of economic studies ignore something two crucial discoveries by Marx: economic systems tend toward instability

no they don't

[emporsteigend]

in fact, the book Generative Social Science explicitly denies both the necessity and the attainability of economic equilibria

[Franz Fanonipants]

that's awfully fascist of you

authoritarian, comrade.


why shouldn't I expect economic theories to be scientific?

is capitalist economic theory "scientific" comrade?

[emporsteigend]

if you mean neoclassical theory, then I would say "no"


authoritarian, comrade.

you're that enlightened to be making choices for everyone else I take it

[Franz Fanonipants]

no bro, consensus will probably catch up

[Azraella]

in fact, the book Generative Social Science explicitly denies both the necessity and the attainability of economic equilibria


Here's an idea. I don't care. I still want a communist society even if Marx is bunk.

[emporsteigend]

I don't

u mad?

[Azraella]

No. Bored with a boring troll.

Here are some thoughts to chew on.


The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.

All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."

All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!

[RGacky3]

At NO point did the Op EVER

A: make an argument.
B: Post some facts, or counter facts.
C: Counter our argument somehow.
D: Piss off.

So based on the fact that he has'nt done any of them, its safe to assume he CANNOT do any of them, other than D.

I'm not gonna do any more research than I've already done, Unless the OP does one of the above, which I doubt he'll do considering he has no interest in honest debate and is incapable of doing so.

[Skooma Addict]

is capitalist economic theory "scientific" comrade?


What is "capitalist economic theory?"

[RGacky3]

He's probably refering to the Neo-Liberal/Neo-Classical doctrine.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What is "capitalist economic theory?"

all of it

[Azraella]

What is "capitalist economic theory?"

Marginal Utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility)

Subjective Theory of Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value)

Austrian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School)

New Classical Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_classical_macroeconomics)

Kenyesian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)

All for example of course.

[RGacky3]

Or you know what, why not JUST present evidence that my evidence is false? Or present evidence that the trend in the UNited States as regards manufacturing is unique and not indicitive of Capitalism as a whole, at least do THAT.

And if your not willing to do that, or A,B or C, the leave, you should be embarrased of yourself challenging Marxists with such ignorance of Marxism, and embarrased that you hav'nt been able to come up with ONE argument much less facts backing an argument at all.

[Azraella]

I'm not even a Marxist. I mean it has good criticisms of capitalism but that's about it. I'm more influenced by the writings of Proudhon and Kropotkin than Marx. I feel awkward. >.>

[RGacky3]

I'm not a Marxist either (I'm not sold on all of his philosophy, and many of his solutions), although the advantage Marx had over the anarchist thinkers is I think he went more in debth into the mechanics of capitalism, whereas the anarchist thinkers made some anlysis but spent more time developing "What could be" economics rather than "what is" economics, of coarse thats very important, but when analysing Capitalism as a system Marx is more useful.

[Skooma Addict]

Marginal Utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility)

Subjective Theory of Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value)

Austrian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School)

New Classical Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_classical_macroeconomics)

Kenyesian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)

All for example of course.

You imbecile. Those are all 3 different economic schools of thought. Well, two of them, the STV and MU are theories which all 3 schools accept.

[RGacky3]

Those 3 schools of thought are defenders of capitalism schools of thought, i.e. celebrating the system.

The STV is a theory based on celebrating capitalism. Marginal utility is'nt unique to capitalist defenders at all though.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You imbecile. Those are all 3 different economic schools of thought. Well, two of them, the STV and MU are theories which all 3 schools accept.

why don't you go make a thread about it on politics comrade wait

[Skooma Addict]

Those 3 schools of thought are defenders of capitalism schools of thought, i.e. celebrating the system.

The STV is a theory based on celebrating capitalism. Marginal utility is'nt unique to capitalist defenders at all though.

Do you just make these things up on the spot? They are not "defenders of capitalism." But yes, adhering to them will usually lead one to adhere to one variety of capitalism or another based on the pretty common normative beliefs people hold. But none of those schools of thought are normative. You could believe in any one of them and reject capitalism without contradicting yourself.

The STV is based on celebrating capitalism? No, because the smarter Socialists such as Burczak for example accept the STV. It is just a better theory than the LTV which has been dead forever now.

[Skooma Addict]

why don't you go make a thread about it on politics comrade wait

I cannot comprehend what you said here.

[Yuppie Grinder]

so, in other words, it's all subjective maaaaaan *bubble bubble bubble*
no. you can respectfully disagree with someone and still think that they're wrong.

[Azraella]

You imbecile. Those are all 3 different economic schools of thought. Well, two of them, the STV and MU are theories which all 3 schools accept.


You didn't have to insult me with an ableist slur and... I'm really really stoned, so please let's be chill and it'll be cool dude.

[La Comédie Noire]

the question then is: why should I accept Marxism if there are theories that (allegedly) say the same thing but in a sharply quantitative way

Because Marxism traces the historical trends that lead to commodity production and the social basis of past economies rather than thinking production for exchange is true to all times and places and that's why there has always been inequality.

This statistical observation can be applied fruitfully to a market economy with independent producers and trade as the basic social tie, but it could not explain Roman Slave Society or Feudalism or probably production for use for that matter. It consequently ignores social class as a result of it's narrow view and bourgeois assumptions.



also if the work is of no original merit then why is it cited by 224 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15143623959591247798&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en)?

A few reasons, one ideas and thinkers are always coming and going out of fashion in the world of Academia. You might as well say Focault or Nietzche had great ideas worth studying by that metric. The other reson would probably be because it places the economy in the narrow world of exchange where equality is present rather than in the production process, where there is inequality.

You also have to realize a lot of academics and policy makers who criticize Marxian economics have never bothered to read Marx, except for probably a few excerpts in their undergraduate Sociology class. A lot of what Marx had to say wouldn't be considered controversial today and a lot of his ideas have been taken up by the different social disciplines.

You see this now a days with thinkers who have become sympathetic to Marx and acknowledge the debt the social sciences owe to him. They try to rehabilitate Marx by getting rid of the radical content of his work and admitting that while his observations are "useful" his prediction of working class revolution is wrong.


perhaps you had better read the original paper (http://www.anonym.to/?http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374)

I'll have a look. Though I have a feeling no matter what I say you won't be convinced. I think you've come here to have an arguement and you'll have it anyway you can.

[postanarchism]

in fact, the book Generative Social Science explicitly denies both the necessity and the attainability of economic equilibria
Instability and equilibrium are different. A system could be in equilibrium or disequilibrium and be either stable or unstable. Stability is a measurement of a economic system's capacity to reproduce itself.

Let's think of it like this. An economic system evolves like a species. It becomes unstable when individual members of a species (in this case the individual members are firms) are unable to reproduce. The species becomes endangered, and then extinct, as it's niche is filled by a new species.

[black magick hustla]

Power law distributions like those of wealth can be better predicted and explained by econophysical and agent-based models. In fact, since phenomena of power laws and criticality apply to many more systems than economies (e.g. earthquakes, epidemics, forest fires), these kinds of explanations are far superior to those offered by Marxism.

those models are phenomenological/statistical models that apply to specific scenarios (todays market). marxism does not attempt to treat what this models do - its not a prediction theory so that investment bankers no where to invest, or help governments know what to subsidize. marxism attempts to give an explanation on the historic and social aspect of this transactions. in a sense, its more akin to history and social theory. for example, you cant explain primitive accumulation with econophysics. marxism is classical political economy. what economists do today is see a bunch of trends and apply some mathematical models to it. i.e. supply and demand curves. i think their uses are different.

i don't think marxism is a science but i dont think it is a pseudoscience either.

[postanarchism]

those models are phenomenological models. i don't think marxism is a science but i dont think it is a pseudoscience either.
I agree. I think a large part of the debate over the scientific character of Marx's writing is the shift in the meaning of science since Marx's death. Kuhn, Popper, Quine, and Feyerbrand have redefined science--not to mention the actual developments in science that set the current body of science apart from that of the 19th century. Marx considered his work 'scientific' because he lived before phenomenology/ontology diverged from science and the natural and social sciences diverged from each other. Therefore, we see different aspects of Marx's thought covering a broad range of topics. Part of which we can consider science (sociology) and part of it philosophy.

[CommunityBeliever]

You use the findings of physics on a daily basis; by default, if you are reading this, you are using countless discoveries of physics, so try to be a little more appreciative.

I previously believed that scientific fields such as mathematics and physics were negatively effected by capitalism but I have changed my mind now. Science is not dependent upon the mode of production.

However, technology is a tool of the ruling class and its use and form is shaped by the mode of production, to the detriment of us all. Many of the technologies that we currently have are deficient, including computers, which is why "computer science" which studies our deficient technologies is actually a pseudoscience. Besides designing our technologies poorly,, capitalism prevented us from reaching important technological breakthroughs like cheap nuclear fusion.

[La Comédie Noire]

Thanks be to Postanarchism for the enlightening interludes on the history of philosophical and scientific thought for salvaging a shit thread! As well as others who held it down with statistics and well thought out responses.

[RGacky3]

Do you just make these things up on the spot? They are not "defenders of capitalism." But yes, adhering to them will usually lead one to adhere to one variety of capitalism or another based on the pretty common normative beliefs people hold. But none of those schools of thought are normative. You could believe in any one of them and reject capitalism without contradicting yourself.


Your right, I'm not here to argue any of that, I was just pointing out what the dude probably meant when he said "capitalist economic theory," which was that he was probably in a crude way refering to neo-classical economics.

Althought I would only dissagree with you with Austrian economics, that school is essencially ONLY a celebration of capitalism, and really only functions as such.


The STV is based on celebrating capitalism? No, because the smarter Socialists such as Burczak for example accept the STV. It is just a better theory than the LTV which has been dead forever now.

The STV really is'nt in conflict with the LTV because its using the word "value" in a totally different way.

But when used against Marxists, its mostly used as a semantics argument.

[pastradamus]

you're missing the point

statistical abuse makes it possible to lie with the truth

focusing on the US alone, an unrepresentative country, is lying with the truth


Just because something has the possibility of not being true dosent inheritantly make it false.

[emporsteigend]

At NO point did the Op EVER

A: make an argument

yes I did

I told you a sample size of one is weak

you never responded adequately


Or you know what, why not JUST present evidence that my evidence is false? Or present evidence that the trend in the UNited States as regards manufacturing is unique and not indicitive of Capitalism as a whole, at least do THAT.

you've got it backwards

that's not my job

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


Here are some thoughts to chew on.

that was some rather sunny language from Kropotkin

too bad the human race doesn't work like that

can you guess how many little children starved to death today?


A few reasons, one ideas and thinkers are always coming and going out of fashion in the world of Academia.

that's a great reason to ignore a good paper


Instability and equilibrium are different. A system could be in equilibrium or disequilibrium and be either stable or unstable. Stability is a measurement of a economic system's capacity to reproduce itself.

where does this definition come from?

I've literally never heard it before


There are an abundance of flaws in our basically all bourgeoisie-influenced sciences: mathematics (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cantors%2Bset%2Btheory%2Bworst&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fontology.buffalo.edu%2F04%2FAgain stSetTheory.pdf&ei=ErS8TtLjLcrciQKQvc2kAw&usg=AFQjCNHBPihKAm40kO29TchEiCcHwKO5fQ&cad=rja), computer science (http://www.loper-os.org/?p=41), physics (http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm), social science (http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Mis-Education-Critical-Perspectives-Dedicated/dp/0742501299), etc.

a lot of mathematicians, computer scientists, and physicists (not sure about social scientists) have been Jewish

perhaps you should blame Jews for corrupting these sciences

more to the point, you gave me a bunch of links saying things like "physicists don't know shit" and "Most of what passes for learning in today’s computing field is ultimately worth about as much as a primitive shaman’s repertoire of magical rituals."

if that's the case, how are you reading this message?

don't you know that the many events leading up to you seeing those ordered pixels on the screen depended on countless discoveries from the sciences you just trashed?

btw do you live in a house or apartment with heat?


For example, our understanding of physics includes crackpottery like time travel, wormholes, and parallel universes.

what makes these things "crackpottery"?


Well I do appreciate what we have achieved over the years, our reactionary systems have prevented us from reaching important technological breakthroughs like cheap nuclear fusion.

citation needed

also, if cheap nuclear fusion is ever achieved, do you realize it will probably depend on the important physical discoveries of the past decades?

to the extent that fusion has been developed at all it has done so

yours was the most idiotic post I've read on this forum; congrats

[RGacky3]

yes I did

I told you a sample size of one is weak

you never responded adequately


Thats not an argument against anything, thats just you not accepting a piece of evidence (because the US is not a large enough economy :rolleyes:).

I want YOU to make an accusation against a specific part of Marxian analysis and put up evidence that it is wrong.


you've got it backwards

that's not my job


You claimed marxism is wrong, yet gave no argument, make an arugment, and back it up.


where does this definition come from?

I've literally never heard it before

You literally hav'nt heard SHIT about Marxism before.

So leave, read some marxian economics, find something you can prove is wrong, then come back here and have a debate.

[emporsteigend]

Thats not an argument against anything, thats just you not accepting a piece of evidence (because the US is not a large enough economy :rolleyes:).

the issue is not that the US economy isn't "large enough"

the issue is that it's only one economy

hence my complaint about you giving me a sample size of one

that's not enough

I want figures from both post-industrial, industrial, and outright third-world economies


You claimed marxism is wrong, yet gave no argument

it has made no novel predictions of fact

rebuttal

[emporsteigend]

RGacky3 do you fail to understand philosophic burden of proof

the burden is on the one making positive assertions about facts

i.e. you

[emporsteigend]

also are you going to give me the original sources for your two graphs?

you're stalling here

[RGacky3]

it has made no novel predictions of fact

rebuttal

Such as.



RGacky3 do you fail to understand philosophic burden of proof

the burden is on the one making positive assertions about facts

i.e. you


I'm not gonna discuss this with you if you dont know jack shit about marxism, and cannot make any specific arguments against actual analysis of Capitalism by Marx.

You said Marxism was wrong, you did'nt even know about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, which tells me you don't know shit about even basic Marxism.

Tell me SPECIFICALLY what Marx got wrong and why he got it wrong, then I will respond.



also are you going to give me the original sources for your two graphs?

you're stalling here


Because I'm not doing anymore research for someone who has no arguments or counter evidence, or even knowledge of what he's talking about.

[emporsteigend]

You said Marxism was wrong, you did'nt even know about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall.

you haven't adequately documented that claim

so far I have two graphs whose original sources I still don't know, both of which concern the US only

but if you want my rebuttal, here's a paper that gives no support for the claim that US profit rates fell:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/1977_1_bpea_papers/1977a_bpea_feldstein_summers_wachter.pdf

[La Comédie Noire]

that's a great reason to ignore a good paper

I'm not ignoring the paper. I have already read two primers, one from you, and am struggling through the actual paper(the math thing again). You just made an argument from ethos and I pointed out how that isn't the surest indicator of quality.

I think it does model the inevitable inequality in exchanged based systems, for instance, have you ever noticed how everything you carry with you always ends up getting shifted over to one pocket?

[emporsteigend]

oh also RGacky3

http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Zachariah_AverageProfitRate_v7.pdf


The trend is clear: the post-World War II boom was followed by a significant decline in average profiitability until a turning point, between 1975 and 1983 depending on country, which was followed by a recovery or partial recovery of profitability.

Two countries that stand out are Japan and Italy. The average profit rate in Japan makes a dramatic turn from levels above 30% down to 7.5% during our period of investigation. Italy, on the other hand, not only recovers to its late-1960s levels of about 18% but reaches 25% by the end of the 1990s.so don't tell me profit rates always fall


I'm not ignoring the paper. I have already read two primers, one from you, and am struggling through the actual paper(the math thing again). You just made an argument from ethos and I pointed out how that isn't the surest indicator of quality.

yeah but providing a parsimonious explanation and sharp predictions are far surer indicators of quality


I think it does model the inevitable inequality in exchanged based systems, for instance, have you ever noticed how everything you carry with you always ends up getting shifted over to one pocket?

no

[RGacky3]

but if you want my rebuttal, here's a paper that gives no support for the claim that US profit rates fell:


Thats not your rebuttal, thats larry summers rebuttal (and we all know how well his policies went :D).

Its a rebuttal that I am 100% sure you have NOT read and DO NOT understand.

I want YOU to post YOUR rebuttal here, not just copy and paste someone elses.

And if you CANNOT make a rebuttal to any of marxes analysis, then leave and in the future have a little more humility about your ignorance, or leave and spend a month or so reading and learning about Marxian economics so that you can make a rebuttal.

I'm not going to argue with someone that cannot formulate an argument.

[RGacky3]

so don't tell me profit rates always fall


I don't say they ALWAYS fall, I say there is a tendancy for them to fall, unless NON MARKET FORCES or expansion of markets comes into play.

Between 1975 and 1983 you had a financializatoin of markets, which in Japan lead to a crash, i.e it was a bubble.

Italy From the 80s to the 90s, liberalized the markets and opened them up, giving extra room for growth, which although profitability grew (for a short time), set the seeds for the eventual crash again, by growing unemployment.

Basically Italy was just playing catch up to the rest of europe.

[emporsteigend]

I want YOU to post YOUR rebuttal here, not just copy and paste someone elses.

do you think I have the resources to conduct economic research on my own?

I don't

and I'm not going make armchair arguments without any facts to back it up

posting someone else's research is in no way fallacious and if you want to post graphs that you don't give the original source for then it's fine for me to post others' facts and figures while giving the source for them

where's your original argument bub?

http://dse.univr.it/workingpapers/PIST26_7_2010.pdf

figure 1 clearly shows profit rate rising and falling in Italy, Denmark, and Finland

you've got some 'splainin to do


I don't say they ALWAYS fall, I say there is a tendancy for them to fall, unless NON MARKET FORCES or expansion of markets comes into play.

non-market forces are always acting on any given nation's economy

how can I test this claim of yours?

[La Comédie Noire]

parsimonious explanation

Parsimony is important when breaking complex phenomena down in order to get some empirically verifiable propositions, but you have to build a theory on that scaffolding in order to say something about those facts.



sharp predictions

All it really says is wealth inequality exists, I could have told you that. :lol:

[emporsteigend]

All it really says is wealth inequality exists, I could have told you that. :lol:

it also explains how that inequality comes to be

you couldn't have just told me that considering your admitted deficiencies in math

[Void]

True science can only work under capitalism

[emporsteigend]

True science can only work under capitalism

why

I doubt that really creative people in the sciences are motivated by profit

watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[La Comédie Noire]

it also explains how that inequality comes to be

I think it gives a rather half assed explanation of how wealth inequality came to be because it ignores concepts such as primitive accumulation, power dynamics , and social class. They even admit as much when they say they abstracted away from everything except for some agents endowed with equal money making skills in a perfectly competitive market.

I know you have already lauded the austere simplicity of this model, but all models must face reality, which is a very complex thing.


you couldn't have just told me that considering your admitted deficiencies in math

I could have and have been for the last 7 years.

[emporsteigend]

I think it gives a rather half assed explanation of how wealth inequality came to be because it ignores concepts such as primitive accumulation, power dynamics , and social class. They even admit as much when they say they abstracted away from everything except for some agents endowed with equal money making skills in a perfectly competitive market.

point masses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle#Point_mass) are unrealistic too

(they're also useful)

also there's no guarantee adding those other variables you named would improve the model

social scientists often like to throw every variable they can into their regression equations, even when it doesn't improve the model, and even when a linear relationship isn't even appropriate


I could have and have been for the last 7 years.

that's easy to say post hoc

[Void]

why

I doubt that really creative people in the sciences are motivated by profit

watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

No money = no science ?

how they get science materials ?

[emporsteigend]

No money = no science ?

a lot of great science and mathematics has been done in economies you would surely not consider "capitalist"

in fact a lot of groundbreaking Soviet work in probability and statistics (you'll see a lot of Russian names whenever you read about that field) was motivated by the needs of the planned economy

as far as I remember anyway

[La Comédie Noire]

point masses are unrealistic too

(they're also useful)

Well point masses are a useful fiction that generates novel data, it lends coherence to particle physics, if it does not correspond to reality 100%.

Your model on the other hand doesn't say anything novel, nor does it correspond with reality at all.

[emporsteigend]

Your model on the other hand doesn't say anything novel, nor does it correspond with reality at all.


In conclusion, we have discussed a very simple model of economy, where the time evolution is described by an equation capturing, at the simplest level, exchange between individuals and random speculative trading in such a way that the fundamental symmetry of the economy under an arbitrary change of monetary units is obeyed. Although our model is not intended to be fully realistic, the family of equations given by Eq. (2) is extremely rich, and leads to interesting generic predictions. We have investigated in details a mean-field limit of this equation and showed that the distribution of wealth is of the Pareto type. The Pareto behaviour of the tails of this distribution appears to be robust for more general connectivity matrices, as a mapping to the directed polymer problem shows. In this context, a transition between an economy governed by a few individuals from a situation where the wealth is more evenly spread out, is found. The important conclusion of the above model is that the distribution of wealth tends to be very broadly distributed when exchanges are limited. Favoring exchanges (and, less surprisingly, increasing taxes) seems to be an efficient way to reduce inequalities.

if you can find anyone who said all this before, I'm all ears

[Rusty Shackleford]

Emporsteigend, what are your political economic and social views?
Did you just graduate an Elements of Argument Course (American English)?
Did you also just take a class on Economic theory?
You are now armed to the teeth to not bring anything to the table but contrarianism and nay-sayings of anything in opposition to your criticism.


All social and economic systems lead to instability. Why else did human society evolve from the early primitive system into slavery, then into feudalism, then into capitalism? Why now is economic crisis gripping the world? Why does the same thing, in varying degrees happen every few years?

Since the ruling mode of production globally is capitalism, then the crisis can be attributed to capitalism and the forms of social organization that arise from it. This is what Marx had argued. Marx was not some genie who pulled predictions out of his ass. Some things may have been incorrect, so what happened? They were corrected!


"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"
There was later an addendum made to that line in which it stated a differently worded 'since primitive communist society, or since pre class society' before the quote begins. (i couldnt copy and paste it because my computer cannot open google searches, wicked virus.)

The book Grundrisse was a precursor to capital, and there have been changes between Grundrisse and Capital vol. I.




Marxism is not an answer to all problems. It is a guide to action to build a new system, but the blueprints of such a new system are in the works of revolutionaries like Lenin (and others). Even then, they are not one size fits all. Marxist analysis of the material conditions of one society should only be applied to that one society, and at that time since society is ever changing.


Im mostly rambling here so yeah.

[emporsteigend]

Emporsteigend, what are your political economic and social views?

why does that matter?


Did you just graduate an Elements of Argument Course (American English)?

no


Did you also just take a class on Economic theory?

no, and notice that my economic views tend to be far out of mainstream


You are now armed to the teeth to not bring anything to the table but contrarianism and nay-sayings of anything in opposition to your criticism.

I ask that people discharge their burden of proof

is that so hard to understand?


All social and economic systems lead to instability.

well

no shit

as researchers in the field of complexity theory have pointed out, systems like the economy exist out of equilibrium and can become unstable

but complexity theory applies to far more than just the economy; it also applies analogously, for example, to ecologies

whatever Marx had to say about that is easily subsumed by complexity theory

[Void]

a lot of great science and mathematics has been done in economies you would surely not consider "capitalist"

in fact a lot of groundbreaking Soviet work in probability and statistics (you'll see a lot of Russian names whenever you read about that field) was motivated by the needs of the planned economy

as far as I remember anyway

Despite the fact I am a capitalist, I must now agree with you that Soviet scientist have contributed a lot to science in a very short time. Given the chance maybe they could have done more.

[emporsteigend]

done more with what? capitalism?

that's probably an untestable claim

[Void]

done more with what? capitalism?

that's probably an untestable claim

With Soviet Union,
This was the strongest enemy the US has ever faced.

[Rusty Shackleford]

as researchers in the field of complexity theory have pointed out, systems like the economy exist out of equilibrium and can become unstable

but complexity theory applies to far more than just the economy; it also applies analogously, for example, to ecologies

whatever Marx had to say about that is easily subsumed by complexity theory


Read Materialism and the Dialectical Method then...
You'll find that Marxism is not solely economic, but that the economic organization of society dictates how people will interact (redundant i know) And material conditions, in the long run lead to the development of economic systems and social order. No 'thing' cannot exist without being in relation to anything else, and any 'thing' is ever changing.

[La Comédie Noire]

The important conclusion of the above model is that the distribution of wealth tends to be very broadly distributed when exchanges are limited. Favoring exchanges (and, less surprisingly, increasing taxes) seems to be an efficient way to reduce inequalities.

Aristotle, Turgot, Quensay ,Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes, Sraffa. Then you have the neo-classical school where they became equilibrium fetishists.

Really the paper is like "ha ha! the economy tends towards inequality and disequilibrium unless it is tempered with progressive taxation." It would certainly make my Economy 101 teacher's monocle pop, but I am used to such declarations.

[emporsteigend]

Read Materialism and the Dialectical Method then...
You'll find that Marxism is not solely economic, but that the economic organization of society dictates how people will interact (redundant i know) And material conditions, in the long run lead to the development of economic systems and social order. No 'thing' cannot exist without being in relation to anything else, and any 'thing' is ever changing.

does Marxism apply to non-humans as well? even inanimates? because complexity theory does


Really the paper is like "ha ha! the economy tends towards inequality and disequilibrium unless it is tempered with progressive taxation." It would certainly make my Economy 101 teacher's monocle pop, but I am used to such declarations.

it says more than that

importantly, it explains Pareto distribution at the micro level

furthermore, you're wrong: such approaches as the Bouchaud and Mézard paper always see disequilibrium in the economy

[Rusty Shackleford]

does Marxism apply to non-humans as well?




The point of Marxism is to change human social organization. To change it, Marxists must look at all facets of material existence. Among other things, Marxism today is just as much about ecological sustainability as it is human sustainability. When one ecosystem fails, it hampers others and human society as well. They are all interrelated.

Of course Marxism is anthropocentric. Marxists are not misanthropes.

[emporsteigend]

The point of Marxism is to change human social organization. To change it, Marxists must look at all facets of material existence. Among other things, Marxism today is just as much about ecological sustainability as it is human sustainability. When one ecosystem fails, it hampers others and human society as well. They are all interrelated.

that's not what I was asking about

I'm asking whether Marxism makes explanations and predictions about ecologies

I'm not aware that it does

complexity theory applies to countless things


Of course Marxism is anthropocentric. Marxists are not misanthropes.

I am and in any case that has nothing to do with Marxism's scientific status

[La Comédie Noire]

importantly, it explains Pareto distribution at the micro level

In an economy of pure exchange where people trade ready made commodities, it can explain the growth of merchant capital, but not the growth of productive capital.

We already know about the balance of trade. The paper even admits that its equations model a simplified version of the economy and what it has to say is not all that profound.


Although our model is not intended to be fully realistic, the family of equations given by Eq. (2) is extremely rich, and leads to interesting generic predictions.

[emporsteigend]

In an economy of pure exchange where people trade ready made commodities, it can explain the growth of merchant capital, but not the growth of productive capital.

this has nothing to do with growth

the total wealth is fixed at the start

you don't understand the paper


The paper even admits that its equations model a simplified version of the economy

all physical models and therefore all econophysical models do this


and what it has to say is not all that profound.

how do you know?

you can't even read it

[Rusty Shackleford]

that's not what I was asking about

I'm asking whether Marxism makes explanations and predictions about ecologies

I'm not aware that it does

complexity theory applies to countless things



I am and in any case that has nothing to do with Marxism's scientific status


your are a Misanthrope?


Marxism is a social science that covers things like historical theory and economics as well.

[emporsteigend]

your are a Misanthrope?

yeah


Marxism is a social science that covers things like historical theory and economics as well.

yeah but complexity theory applies to pretty much everything

[La Comédie Noire]

the total wealth is fixed at the start

You are correct trade does not create growth, it only shuffles around previously existing wealth. I should have used the word "accumulate" it explains the accumulation of merchant capital, where one group of merchants through exchange have accumulated the majority of capital in an economy.

Poor choice of words on my part, but there in lies the poverty of your model. It cannot explain growth or expanded reproduction. See Das Kapital: Volume 2 for further discussion.


all physical models and therefore all econophysical models do this

Well if you'd kindly point me to an econophysical model of production I'd be happy to take a look.



how do you know?

you can't even read it

I may be missing some nuances only known to mathematicians, but I think I got the gist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

guys you realize you're arguing with a dude who has out of hand dismissed marxism as a way to analyze social relationships right

e: will never actually agree with you
or even humor you in any sort of good will

[Void]

Of course Marxism is anthropocentric. Marxists are not misanthropes.

The only point I cant agree with marxism

[emporsteigend]

Poor choice of words on my part, but there in lies the poverty of your model. It cannot explain growth or expanded reproduction.

yeah it's not an all-singing all-dancing model to explain everything

you wouldn't expect a lattice gas automaton to say much about the behavior of subatomic particles would you?

(even if gases are ultimately made of them)


Well if you'd kindly point me to an econophysical model of production I'd be happy to take a look.

I'm not aware of any right now but I'll keep my eyes peeled

[RGacky3]

do you think I have the resources to conduct economic research on my own?

I don't

and I'm not going make armchair arguments without any facts to back it up


Well MAKE armchair arguments and find some facts to back them up, if you can't do that then leave, there is no point in having a discussion. You can find the sources at the bottom of the pages where I got those graphs.


posting someone else's research is in no way fallacious and if you want to post graphs that you don't give the original source for then it's fine for me to post others' facts and figures while giving the source for them

where's your original argument bub?


If you read Larry Summers argument, you can summerize it in your own words and back it up.

My origional argument was making Marx's argument for the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall (which you SHOULD know if you are arguing against it, but in case you DON'T know marx's argument, which I assume you don't, since you did'nt even know he made that argument a while ago (while saying he was wrong), heres a little begginers summery I wrote http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html.

BTW, does'nt it strike you as kind of stupid saying theories of Marx's are wrong when you don't even know them?



http://dse.univr.it/workingpapers/PIST26_7_2010.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dse.univr.it/workingpapers/PIST26_7_2010.pdf)

figure 1 clearly shows profit rate rising and falling in Italy, Denmark, and Finland

you've got some 'splainin to do


Did you read the report?

it actually supports Marx's theory, because it (as the report states) requires wealth redistribion, and moves to profitable sectors, i.e. non-industrial, labor intensive sectors, which means STRUCTUAL CHANGES in your economy.

I already explained part of Italys problem in an earlier post, and Finland and Denmark are basically explained INSIDE the article you posted, if you had read it. Not to mention both countries are highly social democratic.

BTW, the rate of profit can go up and down, thats not the point, its an overtime tendancy, and specifically for the industrial sector.

To show marx was wrong you'd have to show that there was no significant shift in those economies away from the industrial sector during that time.

The last sentance of that article (after explaining the forces that prevented the tendancy for that period of time) is "however under capitalism it will also entail that the consequent benefits will accrue more to capital than to labour, increasing the profits/wages ratio, which, after WeissKopf, is nothing more than the price analogue of the Marxian rate of exploitation."


non-market forces are always acting on any given nation's economy

how can I test this claim of yours?

If you can make a direct connection, for example subsidies, population shifts, whatever, if you can make a logical connection then by all means.

[emporsteigend]

Well MAKE armchair arguments and find some facts to back them up, if you can't do that then leave, there is no point in having a discussion. You can find the sources at the bottom of the pages where I got those graphs.

where'd you get them?


Did you read the report?

it actually supports Marx's theory, because it (as the report states) requires wealth redistribion, and moves to profitable sectors, i.e. non-industrial, labor intensive sectors, which is NOT changing the capital/labor ratio

why wouldn't it change the capital/labor ratio?


I already explained part of Italys problem in an earlier post, and Finland and Denmark are basically explained INSIDE the article you posted, if you had read it. Not to mention both countries are highly social democratic.

why am I told they're "capitalist"?


BTW, the rate of profit can go up and down, thats not the point, its an overtime tendancy, and specifically for the industrial sector.

that tendency isn't clear


To show marx was wrong you'd have to show that there was no significant shift in those economies away from the industrial sector during that time.

was there?


If you can make a direct connection, for example subsidies, population shifts, whatever, if you can make a logical connection then by all means.

what?

[RGacky3]

BTW talk about sample bias, I pick the largest capitalist economy in the world and one dedicated to the neo-liberal model.

And you pick 2 of the most social-democratic countries in the world and Italy, (which does not have at all a typical capitalist economic history.)

[emporsteigend]

BTW talk about sample bias, I pick the largest capitalist economy in the world and one dedicated to the neo-liberal model.

And you pick 2 of the most social-democratic countries in the world

but I'm told they're "capitalist"

[RGacky3]

where'd you get them?


From other threads, but you can look it up from the picture I though.


why wouldn't it change the capital/labor ratio?


Why don't you read the article, it could change it, but not necasserily in the specific industry, if you move from industry to finance, or distribution, that would shift the profitability, but have nothing to do with the tendancy, which applies to industry.


why am I told they're "capitalist"?


THey are capitalist, but its not ALL or nothing, and there is a big difference between a social-democracy and a American style capitalist country, if you don't know the difference you have no buisiness here.


that tendency isn't clear


Yes it is if you pay attention, you did'nt read that article, its explaining WHY the tendancy is'nt in those countries.

My charts, for Germany, Japan and the USA, were MANUFACTURING profits, which is what applies to the rate of profit. The rate of profit can go up for the country, but in manufacturing, in industry the tedancy is to go down.

[emporsteigend]

From other threads, but you can look it up from the picture I though.

no you can do that


Why don't you read the article, it could change it, but not necasserily in the specific industry, if you move from industry to finance, or distribution, that would shift the profitability, but have nothing to do with the tendancy, which applies to industry.

where does the article say that?

also there are graphs showing change in capital-labor ratios

you are seriously confused

[RGacky3]

Before we go on, breifly explain (IN YOUR OWN WORDS) what the tendancy for the rate of profit to go down IS, and what Marx arguments for it were.

(so you know what you are arguing against).

[RGacky3]

where does the article say that?

also there are graphs showing change in capital-labor ratios

you are seriously confused

Yes there are, for the country as a whole, in the conclusion it explains that the raise in profitability came from sector shifts.

[RGacky3]

no you can do that


You say the data I presetend is false, YOU show how.

[emporsteigend]

well you've yet to give a source for it

I have some machine learning research to be doing but I'll be back...

[RGacky3]

WHile your gone learn some basic marxian economics.

[Void]

I don't even understand about what you argue.

[emporsteigend]

Yes there are, for the country as a whole, in the conclusion it explains that the raise in profitability came from sector shifts.

I'm not aware that Marx had anything to say about "sector shifts" so it looks like you just came up with an ad hoc excuse for this behavior

[RGacky3]

I'm not aware that Marx had anything to say about "sector shifts" so it looks like you just came up with an ad hoc excuse for this behavior

Explain to me the theory of the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, because I don't believe you understand it.

[emporsteigend]

Explain to me the theory of the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, because I don't believe you understand it.

according to Marx, rate of profit = surplus value (from labor) / capital so as investment in capital increases, other things being equal, rate of profit falls off

of course there aren't any econometric data that I know of to show this consistently but

[RGacky3]

IN PRODUCTION!!!!

Finance capital does not result from surplus value form capital, niether does merchant capital (completely), its specifically refers to production capital.

[emporsteigend]

where did Marx say that

or is that one of your ad hoc add-ons

[RGacky3]

where did Marx say that

or is that one of your ad hoc add-ons


In Kapital, he explained how industrial capitalist gain wealth from surplus labor value, financial capital i.e. money lending capital gets it from rent, merchant capital gets it from retail cost. He specifically refers to the capitalist mode of PRODUCTION when talking about the tendancy.

BTW, you never explained the tendancy, explain Marx's argument for it, and why you think it was flawed.

(Btw, this was also Adam smiths theory).

[RGacky3]

-

[Invader Zim]

Not particularly. That would only be the case if Marx was a utopian socialist.

Which language was the quote written in?

[emporsteigend]

In Kapital, he explained how industrial capitalist gain wealth from surplus labor value, financial capital i.e. money lending capital gets it from rent, merchant capital gets it from retail cost. He specifically refers to the capitalist mode of PRODUCTION when talking about the tendancy.

where?

also give me the chapter and section so I can look up the original German

I'm not holding my breath after all because after all you still haven't given me the source for your oh-so-reputable graphs earlier


(Btw, this was also Adam smiths theory).

if so it's not terribly novel is it?

[Blake's Baby]

Marx didn't say he was being novel. He based his critique of political economy on the economics of his day. It's hardly very sensible to critique something by inventing things to argue with, is it? This is called a 'strawman' and it's a silly debating tactic. For instance, criticising Marx for lack of novelty when his aim was to criticise the theories that went before him.

[RGacky3]

where?

also give me the chapter and section so I can look up the original German


Volume 3, you don't have to read it in the origional, you could just read a Marxian economist explain it, I juts want you to have a basic idea of what your arguing about.

[emporsteigend]

Marx didn't say he was being novel. He based his critique of political economy on the economics of his day. It's hardly very sensible to critique something by inventing things to argue with, is it? This is called a 'strawman' and it's a silly debating tactic. For instance, criticising Marx for lack of novelty when his aim was to criticise the theories that went before him.

critiques can make novel predictions


Volume 3

that's too broad

give me the quote in English (or, since you say you live in Northern Europe, whatever your native language is, unless it's Finnish, which I can't read) and I can find the German translation

[RGacky3]

give me the quote in English (or, since you say you live in Northern Europe, whatever your native language is, unless it's Finnish, which I can't read) and I can find the German translation

No how about you know what the hell your arguing against, I'm not gonna have you come here, argue against something that you have no concept of, and then teach you about what YOU are arguing against.

Its like you saying "The theory of relativity is FALSE, by the way can you explain to me the theory of relativity."

[emporsteigend]

Marxism is apparently like a cult that you have to be initiated into

unlike something like physics where it's easy to check your work independently there's always someone there to say "no no, you got it wrong; it's really like this"

now I'm willing to oblige your demand that I read the original work, despite you not having given me the sources for two graphs you showed me much earlier, so give me the fucking quote already ... any Germanic language will do, including English, I can read them all

(well maybe not Icelandic)

[RGacky3]

Marxism is apparently like a cult that you have to be initiated into



No its juts something you should probably know about if your going to argue against, LIKE ANYTHING ELSE.


unlike something like physics where it's easy to check your work independently there's always someone there to say "no no, you got it wrong; it's really like this"


Why don't you check it out independantly.


now I'm willing to oblige your demand that I read the original work, despite you not having given me the sources for two graphs you showed me much earlier, so give me the fucking quote already ... any Germanic language will do, including English, I can read them all


Look it up yourself, I'm not gonna go out and look where the quotes or chapters are in Kapital, or whatever, if your arguing against something know about it.

[Marcist]

Marxism is not a science only because humans invented it.

[RGacky3]

if so it's not terribly novel is it?

Who cares? I don't care if you call it Marxism or modified Ricardian economics, it does'nt matter.