If Marxism is a science, so is Austrian economics

[emporsteigend]

a number of people here have made the excuse that, because Marxism is a "social science" it doesn't need any substantial predictive or explanatory power

that's the same excuse Austrians make for the failings of their pet economic theory; see here e.g.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?98033-Is-Austrian-Economics-a-pseudo-science

so if Marxism is a science, then so is Austrian economics, by the criteria of many people on this board

how is that? answer me, clever trousers!

[Franz Fanonipants]

:thumbup1:

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know whether Marxism is a science (I don't think so, but what do I know), but the Austrian school rejects the scientific method of using empirical evidence to verify a thesis so it is by no means scientific.

[danyboy27]

Austrian economics have been proven false time and time again in the past.
this stupid notion that a laissé faire market is preferable ignore the fact that market cannot survive without regulations.

Marxism on the other hand aknowledge that market couldnt exist without governement and regulations.

it dosnt support market but aknowledge that their existance require a regulating body, something the dumbass austrian will not do, despite the mountain of historical evidences proving the contrary.

[Broletariat]

Marxism is most assuredly scientific. The parallel I like to draw is between Marxism and Chemistry.

Chemistry seeks to investigate matter so it begins at its most basic unit, the atom.

Marxism seeks to investigate Capitalism, so it begins at its most basic unit, the commodity.

[RGacky3]

It does'nt matter if you call marxism or austrian economics a science or whatever.

Austrian econmics has been proven wrong over and over and over again, Marxian economics has yet to be proven wrong.

[IndependentCitizen]

Austrian economics are lol.

That is all.

[Skooma Addict]

Marxism on the other hand aknowledge that market couldnt exist without governement and regulations.

Markets have existed without government and regulations.

[Skooma Addict]

It does'nt matter if you call marxism or austrian economics a science or whatever.

Austrian econmics has been proven wrong over and over and over again, Marxian economics has yet to be proven wrong.

Well that certainly isn't the consensus among economists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Markets have existed without government and regulations.
How about some demonstration?
I mean, this is an empty assertion which really doesn't elaborate anything.

[Azraella]

I could care less if Marxism or Austrian economics were scientific or not. I'm still a communist.

[RGacky3]

Markets have existed without government and regulations.

Where and when? Where and when was the market the internal system of distribution amung a society WITHOUT government and regulations?


Well that certainly isn't the consensus among economists.

Well amung neo-classical, keynsian, institutional, Marxian and so on, Austrian economics is basically rejected. Austrian economics has been dissproven time and time again empirically, and even logically.

When it comes to Marxian economics the arguments are always agaisnt the implied solutions, not the analysis itself.

[Iron Felix]

Markets have existed without government and regulations.
They have, but for how long? Markets have been proven over and over again to abolish themselves without intervention. They simply cannot support themselves.

[danyboy27]

the most ''free'' market that ever existed was in medieval middle-east, when it was actually legal to stab the guy who defrauded you to death.

But even then governement instaured various politics to stabilize the market, fixing the price of certain item despite the strong opposition of ''the market''.

Even in a libertarian dreamland without food and safety regulation, in a world where it would be actually legal to kill or execute the one who defrauded you, the intervention of the governement was needed to keep the whole thing from crashing down like the goddamn hindenberg.

[Skooma Addict]

Where and when? Where and when was the market the internal system of distribution amung a society WITHOUT government and regulations?

Somalia, Anarchist Catalonia if you consider that stateless, any period of statelessness after the emergence of barter. It is true that without the government markets tend to be less developed, but there are still markets.


Well amung neo-classical, keynsian, institutional, Marxian and so on, Austrian economics is basically rejected. Austrian economics has been dissproven time and time again empirically, and even logically.

When it comes to Marxian economics the arguments are always agaisnt the implied solutions, not the analysis itself.

There have been many critiques of the analysis itself.

[danyboy27]

You are confusing market exchange and human cooperation.

[RGacky3]

Somalia, Anarchist Catalonia if you consider that stateless, any period of statelessness after the emergence of barter. It is true that without the government markets tend to be less developed, but there are still markets.


None of those areas have internal markets being the main system of distribution, Somalia, where there is not government, is basically a command economy with warlords, Anarchist Catalonia was more of a mutualist system.


There have been many critiques of the analysis itself.

Such as? (I'm not saying there are not, but I've never seen a strong one).

[Skooma Addict]

None of those areas have internal markets being the main system of distribution, Somalia, where there is not government, is basically a command economy with warlords, Anarchist Catalonia was more of a mutualist system.

Markets are the main system of distribution in Somalia. The warlord situation is overplayed by the media. IN Catalonia there were still markets, even though they were not the main form of distribution. Just goes to show the staying power of markets that they still exist even when authorities actively try to destroy them.


Such as? (I'm not saying there are not, but I've never seen a strong one).

For me the critiques of the LTV are convincing. Some elements of Marxism I agree with however. I think Marx made a lot of great social insights.

[graymouser]

Marxism is viewed as a science because it is based on the study of the structure of societies - that is, it looks at what actually exists and studies its laws of motion. The Austrian school of economics looks at axioms and working from them, a 100% different model of analysis. At least neoclassical economics has its models, as intrinsically flawed as they inevitably are; Austrian economics doesn't even have the pretense of being scientific.

[Ocean Seal]

a number of people here have made the excuse that, because Marxism is a "social science" it doesn't need any substantial predictive or explanatory power

That's the exact opposite of a science.


that's the same excuse Austrians make for the failings of their pet economic theory; see here e.g.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?98033-Is-Austrian-Economics-a-pseudo-science

so if Marxism is a science, then so is Austrian economics, by the criteria of many people on this board

how is that? answer me, clever trousers!

No, its not. Austrian economics rejects empiricism in favor of their pseudoscience "praxeology". We are a science because we use observations from the real world, try to understand root causes, subject our ideologies to rigorous tests, and have a comprehensive analysis of history which doesn't conflict with our views.

[Ocean Seal]

Markets have existed without government and regulations.
I would agree that markets existed with little government interference and few regulations, but that was mainly associated with the gilded age, something most capitalists shriek in horror about and wish to forget.

[Thirsty Crow]

I would agree that markets existed with little government interference and few regulations, but that was mainly associated with the gilded age, something most capitalists shriek in horror about and wish to forget.
Regulations are not the only way that the state manifests its activities with regard to markets.
For one, there must be a guarantee that the agents will be able to conduct their transactions (buying and selling of commodities, including the continuing commodification of labour power) in an orderly manner, thus leading to the necessity of policing - basically, the use of sheer physical force (or the threat of force) in order to perpetuate a social order based on the circulation of commodities.

[Rafiq]

Austrian economics has been djsproven while marxian economic theory stands legitiment. Marxism is not a science because of its economic wing, it's a social science because it is an understanding of human history as well (historical materialism) while the austrian school is merely an economic one

[Skooma Addict]

That's the exact opposite of a science.


No, its not. Austrian economics rejects empiricism in favor of their pseudoscience "praxeology". We are a science because we use observations from the real world, try to understand root causes, subject our ideologies to rigorous tests, and have a comprehensive analysis of history which doesn't conflict with our views.

Well the proposition that socialism is inevitable is unfalsifiable.

[Rafiq]

Markets have existed without state intervention, that's why we mention them in past tense. There is a reason they don't exist anymore.

[Rafiq]

Well the proposition that socialism is inevitable is unfalsifiable.

Well a system in which the interests of the proletariat are upheld over all others is 'inevitable'. I think Marx meant that it's most likely

[Conscript]

Well the proposition that socialism is inevitable is unfalsifiable.

Not even marx said socialism was inevitable. He made predictions, but he was no determinist.

[Blake's Baby]

Well the proposition that socialism is inevitable is unfalsifiable.

Good job it's not a marxist proposition then.

What marxism says is that increasing immiseration will force the working class to resist, it doesn't say that resistance will necessarily overthrow capitalism.

We could all die in a horrible conflagration or capitalism might win (it has so far) and we might be ground down for ever - always resisting (because we have to) but never, as a class, overthrowing the system.

[graymouser]

Well the proposition that socialism is inevitable is unfalsifiable.
Marx says in detail that each class struggle in history so far had ended "either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." So the Marxist proposition is that capitalism would end either in the revolutionary reconstruction of society - that is, socialism - or the common ruin of the contending classes - that is, barbarism. This is what Rosa Luxemburg forecast at the beginning of the 20th century, in her famous dilemma of either socialism or barbarism.

[RichardAWilson]

Austrian Economics doesn't even claim to be scientific.

With that said, Austrian Economics is a Theory of Political Economy that's based on nothing, whereas Marxism is a Theory of Political Economy that has researched and investigated history, society and culture and is based on scientific principles and the use of the scientific method.

I find it cool that a number of the original demands in Marx's Communist Manifesto have, over time, been implemented in various forms, often with the support of the bourgeoisie.

1. The Modern Central Bank - Check

2. The Progressive Income Tax - Check

3. A Progressive Inheritance Tax - Check

4. Public Education - Check

5. State Ownership of the Commanding Heights - Check (Post-War Era)

Where Marxian policies have been used (I'm not talking about China and North Korea, or even the former Soviet-Union), they've worked and, in certain cases, even complimented capitalism. - Although when they were used, they weren't used for benefiting the working classes, they were used to benefit the bourgeoisie. The fact that they benefited both the workers and the shareholders was an unforeseen effect.

[graymouser]

Austrian Economics doesn't even claim to be scientific.

With that said, Austrian Economics is a Theory of Political Economy that's based on nothing, whereas Marxism is a Theory of Political Economy that has researched and investigated history, society and culture and is based on scientific principles and the use of the scientific method.

I find it cool that a number of the original demands in Marx's Communist Manifesto have, over time, been implemented in various forms, often with the support of the bourgeoisie.

1. The Modern Central Bank - Check

2. The Progressive Income Tax - Check

3. A Progressive Inheritance Tax - Check

4. Public Education - Check

5. State Ownership of the Commanding Heights - Check (Post-War Era)

Where Marxian policies have been used (I'm not talking about China and North Korea, or even the former Soviet-Union), they've worked and, in certain cases, even complimented capitalism. - Although when they were used, they weren't used for benefiting the working classes, they were used to benefit the bourgeoisie. The fact that they benefited both the workers and the shareholders was an unforeseen effect.
This was an immediate program for the European revolutions of 1848 and not a generalized Marxist policy for all time; if you read the various introductions neither Marx nor Engels considered it to be of much use after these revolutions, and their own concepts became better clarified.

Also - it's not as if the whole of the program has ever been realized. The banking one was not simply a central bank, but the centralization of all banks in the hands of the state. This is actually a critical strategic move that has been ignored to the defeat of many revolutions, since when the banks are not taken over the reactionaries have unfettered access to their own funds. The means of transport and communication are likewise not taken over by the state except in those countries that called themselves socialist and that Trotskyists would call workers' states (albeit mostly degenerated or deformed after 1924); the same with the right of inheritance and the various measures calling for property in the hands of the state. No one's ever tried to eliminate the town/country distinction, and I'm not sure if's even desirable.

The method of the program was refined over time, and as Trotskyists we generally consider the Transitional Program to be the highest expression of it. But generally we do not see reform as a vindication of Marx's method so much as workers winning a somewhat better lot through class struggle, which is generally not accounted for within non-Marxist economic frameworks.

[Ocean Seal]

Well the proposition that socialism is inevitable is unfalsifiable.
But what you can disprove and have failed to do so is that Marxism somehow offers an inadequate understand of capitalism and the modes of production. Show me a critique to the Marxist analysis based on legitimate observations and a genuine understanding of Marxist work rather than just an opportunistic misinterpretation.

[Comrade Hill]

Austrian economics is a bunch of loaded bullshit. They don't even understand how their own capitalist system works. Its seriously pitiful.

[Misanthrope]

No because Austrian economics is compromised of made up axioms. Marxism is a scientific analysis of capitalism.

[hatzel]

Austrian economists have made a couple of decent points. Every now and then. To claim otherwise would be dishonest. The words 'broken clock' and 'twice a day' spring to mind, though...

[RGacky3]

Markets are the main system of distribution in Somalia. The warlord situation is overplayed by the media. IN Catalonia there were still markets, even though they were not the main form of distribution. Just goes to show the staying power of markets that they still exist even when authorities actively try to destroy them.


In Catalonia there were not markets of any significance.

In Somalia, in the places without a government there is no functioning market, they're may be markets here and there, but its not a market system.


For me the critiques of the LTV are convincing. Some elements of Marxism I agree with however. I think Marx made a lot of great social insights.

The critiques of LTV are just using the world value in a difference sense.

[Misanthrope]

Well a system in which the interests of the proletariat are upheld over all others is 'inevitable'. I think Marx meant that it's most likely

Yup because purely free markets go against the capitalist's interests.

[Rafiq]

Yup because purely free markets go against the capitalist's interests.

:confused:

Actually, "Free Market" doctrine could go against the Interests of the capitalist class because of it's sheer inefficiency. Think about it for a second. The Bourgeoisie are not idiots. They know that such a society would end up eating shit, thus the system being destroyed and their position as class-dictators dethrown and tossed in the trash.

Free Markets represent the interests of the Middle-Upper crust portion of the Petite-Bourgeoisie, and the "Lower section" of the actual Bourgeoisie (Small lawyer firms, etc.) Basically the idiots.

[Rafiq]

The critiques of LTV are just using the world value in a difference sense.

I was under the impression that Marx formulated the grand "Theory of Value" rather then the Theory of Labor value.

And yes, the Austrian School members lack the ability to grasp what Marx meant by value, judging by their works.

[Misanthrope]

:confused:

Actually, "Free Market" doctrine could go against the Interests of the capitalist class because of it's sheer inefficiency. Think about it for a second. The Bourgeoisie are not idiots. They know that such a society would end up eating shit, thus the system being destroyed and their position as class-dictators dethrown and tossed in the trash.

Free Markets represent the interests of the Middle-Upper crust portion of the Petite-Bourgeoisie, and the "Lower section" of the actual Bourgeoisie (Small lawyer firms, etc.) Basically the idiots.

In Austrian theory, a pure capitalist system would have no monopolies as they are a result of state subsidies. Therefore more competition, therefore loss of profits for the capitalist class. This theory is all bullshit though.

I don't know if they think it would end up failing but their fear that they wouldn't have a forceful way to protect their interests. The state is a tool of class oppression. It forcefully protects their interests. Now in a true Austrian utopia the state would just be privatized along with everything else, but now we're just going into semantics.

[Rafiq]

Of course monopolies would be created, who is going to stop trusts from being created? Petty-Moralism?

The Austrian school, idiots, at best. (Not completely, though).

[Misanthrope]

Of course monopolies would be created, who is going to stop trusts from being created? Petty-Moralism?

The Austrian school, idiots, at best. (Not completely, though).

The principles of an honest entrepreneur of course! :laugh: Although the Austrian school accepts the "fact" that humans are naturally greedy, evil, animals.

[Revolution starts with U]

Their hypothesis is that monopolizing only leaves you open to be undercut, on a free market (that's a short synopsis).

The problem is that if a company arrives that can undercut me, I'll just buy it; once again AE fails at history.

[black magick hustla]

marxism is a "science" in the 19th century german meaning of the word, not in the 21th century meaning of the word. its more akin to what people call "critical theory". i think people who call marxism "science" are abusing the term, but at the same time i think the austrian school of economics is garbage. i think there is more evidence that men are historical creatures and can come up with all sorts of economic setups, than the idiotic idea that capitalism is immanent to human nature, as if men are invariant.

[RGacky3]

I was under the impression that Marx formulated the grand "Theory of Value" rather then the Theory of Labor value.


Marx contributed to the theory of labor value, its his theory of value.


And yes, the Austrian School members lack the ability to grasp what Marx meant by value, judging by their works.

Its almost as if they think Marx did'nt understand supply and demand.

[Rafiq]

Marx contributed to the theory of labor value, its his theory of value.



Its almost as if they think Marx did'nt understand supply and demand.

Supply and demand determining price is so empty. It is as if the whole statement has a missing pillar.

To some extent, it affects it, but labor as a whole is what determins the actual concrete value, and if price falls bellow this via supply and demand then a buisness makes no profit.

[RGacky3]

Supply and demand determining price is so empty. It is as if the whole statement has a missing pillar.

To some extent, it affects it, but labor as a whole is what determins the actual concrete value, and if price falls bellow this via supply and demand then a buisness makes no profit.

Marx's and Smiths and Ricardo's labor theory of value was not a theory of prices, but your right, if the price falls below the value the buisiness is not profitable, the value is basically the supply and demand being equal, what the price would be.

People love to bring up the buggy vrs car argument. If a million cars are being sold for a million drivers, and ONE buggy was being made for ONE buggy collector ( or a museum or whatever), both of their prices would roughly match the labor value.

Now if there are 20 buggy producers and one collector, then you have a supply and demand issue, the same if you have only 1000 cars being produced for a million drivers.

[La Comédie Noire]

Social Sciences are different from Hard Sciences, that includes the bullshit ones like Austrian Economics.

Next.

EDIT:

It's pretty funny when people first learn about falsifiability and the new conception of science, they go around pushing a vulgar interpretation up in peoples' faces. When in reality these philosophers and scientists who elaborated the methods admitted that a lot of good stuff was unfalsifiable and that they were merely trying to demarcate the boundary between what could be said with empirical evidence and what could not.

[RGacky3]

btw, its interesting that pro-capitalist economists only ever challenged the LTOV when it was used by Marx to show exploitation and problems in capitalism, so instead of argue against Marx they have to scramble to fight the premist that Marx based it on, which was a premis set up by pro-Capitalist economists.

[emporsteigend]

Marxism is most assuredly scientific.

why do a lot of philosophers of science disagree with you


Chemistry seeks to investigate matter so it begins at its most basic unit, the atom.

there are smaller units of matter quite relevant to chemistry

see here e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry


Marxism seeks to investigate Capitalism, so it begins at its most basic unit, the commodity.

what about novel predictions of fact and parsimony of explanation?

[emporsteigend]

That's the exact opposite of a science.

how is "substantial predictive or explanatory power" the "exact opposite of a science"


[we] subject our ideologies to rigorous tests

like what?

[Judicator]

When in reality these philosophers and scientists who elaborated the methods admitted that a lot of good stuff was unfalsifiable and that they were merely trying to demarcate the boundary between what could be said with empirical evidence and what could not.

Like the premise of falsifiability itself :)

[RGacky3]

I wish people that are against marxian economics actually make actual economic arguments against marxian economics.

[Marcist]

Austrian economics were debunked by Chicago school.