Opinions on the school of economics?

[Schumpeter]

Fire away

[Sinister Intents]

Fire away

You really gave nothing to discuss IMO. Bring up some points.

[Schumpeter]

You really gave nothing to discuss IMO. Bring up some points.

Are you hostile to it in the same manner in which you are hostile to ethics?

[Sinister Intents]

Are you hostile to it in the same manner in which you are hostile to ethics?

I am very hostile to capitalism. Define ethics.

[IBleedRed]

Our "opinions"on the different schools of thought don't mean a damn thing and are completely irrelevant if the schools of thought lack explanatory power and rigorous empirical foundations.

I'll oblige, anyway, to answer your question. There are many different schools of thought, so I'll just list the ones I'm familiar with.

Austrian: complete joke, no empirical foundation. The emphasis on "freedom" as some abstract notion and the rejection of quantitative analysis are clear reasons why the Austrian school lacks explanatory power

Classical & Neoclassical: This is the "best" school of thought as far as the health and proliferation of capital are concerned

Keynesian: Well, they're at least smart enough to figure out that the "free market" doesn't fix anything

Marxian: has the most explanatory power

[Schumpeter]

Our "opinions"on the different schools of thought don't mean a damn thing and are completely irrelevant if the schools of thought lack explanatory power and rigorous empirical foundations.

I'll oblige, anyway, to answer your question. There are many different schools of thought, so I'll just list the ones I'm familiar with.

Austrian: complete joke

So would you accept orthodox economic laws such as supply and demand?

[Schumpeter]

I am very hostile to capitalism. Define ethics.

How can you be hostile to capitalism, capitalism is merely a means to an end, compare the results of capitalist societies with socialist societies, socialist societies are more materialistic, unequal and generally standard of living is much lower.

[Sinister Intents]

How can you be hostile to capitalism, capitalism is merely a means to an end, compare the results of capitalist societies with socialist societies, socialist societies are more materialistic, unequal and generally standard of living is much lower.

Because capitalism is parasitic bullshit that benefits the few over that ov the many. By socialist societies I'm assuming you mean the USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, DPRK, et cetera. They're state capitalist nations and in no way are they representative of socialism. They're only socialist by name in essence.

[Schumpeter]

Because capitalism is parasitic bullshit that benefits the few over that ov the many. By socialist societies I'm assuming you mean the USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, DPRK, et cetera. They're state capitalist nations and in no way are they representative of socialism. They're only socialist by name in essence.

Capitalism is based on the principle of free exchange, how you can describe the USSR as capitalist, when private trade was outlawed until perestroika beggars belief.

[IBleedRed]

So would you accept orthodox economic laws such as supply and demand?

Why wouldn't I? Marxists don't reject the validity of the supply-demand model; instead, we seek to explain it fundamentally


How can you be hostile to capitalism, capitalism is merely a means to an end, compare the results of capitalist societies with socialist societies, socialist societies are more materialistic, unequal and generally standard of living is much lower.
Capitalism isn't characterized by simple trade, so I don't know what you're talking about. Capitalism is characterized by the relationships that exist between capital and labor. The relationships that exist between capital and labor are historically unique and bring with them a whole range of effects and implications for society.

Your second point is invalid. You can't do a straightforward comparison of the standard of living between two different countries and attribute any differences to ideology. You are ignoring historical context.

The United States and the Soviet Union were not at all at the same standard of living in 1921, so why would it be a surprise to anybody that the Soviet Union had a lower standard of living later on? What's more informative is how the standard of living changed within the country. By all measures, Soviet economic growth was remarkable. Industrial output, life expectancy, calorie consumption, literacy, etc, all went up significantly between 1928-1970 (source: Farm to Factory by Robert C Allen)

Pre-revolutionary Russia, China, Cuba, etc, were all undeveloped Third World countries. Keep that in mind.

[IBleedRed]

Capitalism is based on the principle of free exchange, how you can describe the USSR as capitalist, when private trade was outlawed until perestroika beggars belief.
Actually, a private market did exist within which peasants sold any surplus food or agricultural products directly to city-dwellers at uncontrolled prices.

Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1810713

[Schumpeter]

Why wouldn't I? Marxists don't reject the validity of the supply-demand model; instead, we seek to explain it fundamentally


Capitalism isn't characterized by simple trade, so I don't know what you're talking about. Capitalism is characterized by the relationships that exist between capital and labor. The relationships that exist between capital and labor are historically unique and bring with them a whole range of effects and implications for society.

Your second point is invalid. You can't do a straightforward comparison of the standard of living between two different countries and attribute any differences to ideology. You are ignoring historical context.

The United States and the Soviet Union were not at all at the same standard of living in 1921, so why would it be a surprise to anybody that the Soviet Union had a lower standard of living later on? What's more informative is how the standard of living changed within the country. By all measures, Soviet economic growth was remarkable. Industrial output, life expectancy, calorie consumption, literacy, etc, all went up significantly between 1928-1970 (source: Farm to Factory by Robert C Allen)

Pre-revolutionary Russia, China, Cuba, etc, were all undeveloped Third World countries. Keep that in mind.

Well you've started off making a very individualistic assumption 'comrade', I was talking to the wider commune of 'RevLeft' whom hold differing views - not all of them Marxist ;).

It comes back to the principle of free exchange, you've merely added in what is being exchanged. The Soviet economy stagnated by Brezhnev and partly Khrushchev, they only achieved such remarkable growth rates due to starting from such a pitiful base, the economic growth of the soviet union was built on the blood of 'the workers' quite literally, it is the only country to successful industrialize without basing its economy on the principle of free exchange and it only managed to do this at a human course which leaves the human cost of industrialization in capitalist nations pale in comparison.

[Schumpeter]

Actually, a private market did exist within which peasants sold any surplus food or agricultural products directly to city-dwellers at uncontrolled prices.

Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1810713

It depends on which period we are talking about.

[IBleedRed]

It comes back to the principle of free exchange, you've merely added in what is being exchanged.

What comes down to the principle of free exchange?

Again, capitalism is characterized by the relationship between capital and labor, not trade as a thing in itself. Pre-capitalist societies had trade and exchange, but they had very different modes of production.

Capitalism is remarkably different from feudalism, for example. A serf bound to a landlord back in the day produced directly for use (both his own as well as that of his landlord). Money was not the object of trade or production. The serf also usually owned or operated some means of production (land) for his own use.

In a modern capitalist economy, a worker does not own any means of production and works for a wage, with which he then goes into the market to purchase commodities. A worker working in a factory is not producing for his own consumption. In a capitalist economy, money IS the direct objective of production and exchange for a capitalist.

Profits can't be made except with the exploitation of the worker. That means paying the worker less than the value that the worker contributes through his work.


The Soviet economy stagnated by Brezhnev and partly Khrushchev, they only achieved such remarkable growth rates due to starting from such a pitiful baseAnd yet, many of the countries who were as poor as Russia in 1917 are now significantly behind Russia in 2014


the economic growth of the soviet union was built on the blood of 'the workers' quite literally, it is the only country to successful industrialize without basing its economy on the principle of free exchange and it only managed to do this at a human course which leaves the human cost of industrialization in capitalist nations pale in comparison.Nay, the human cost is simply transferred to the Third World.



It depends on which period we are talking about.
Mmkay

[#FF0000]

So would you accept orthodox economic laws such as supply and demand?

You could check out some Marx and get your answer (yes)

[Sinister Intents]

You could check out some Marx and get your answer (yes)

I don't think he'll read any of it, I gave a good reply regarding literature and it was ignored

[IBleedRed]

I don't think he'll read any of it, I gave a good reply regarding literature and it was ignored
It's pretty clear he has no familiarity with the things he's trying to criticize, and no idea what he's talking about

[Sinister Intents]

It's pretty clear he has no familiarity with the things he's trying to criticize, and no idea what he's talking about

Indeed, I agree. He doesn't even present good counter arguments. In the other thread he was posting in and prostitution got brought up I posted a really Good work by Emma Goldman that directly addresses prostitution, and he replied with some shit about welfare and his uncles or something.

[Schumpeter]

What comes down to the principle of free exchange?

Again, capitalism is characterized by the relationship between capital and labor, not trade as a thing in itself. Pre-capitalist societies had trade and exchange, but they had very different modes of production.

Capitalism is remarkably different from feudalism, for example. A serf bound to a landlord back in the day produced directly for use (both his own as well as that of his landlord). Money was not the object of trade or production. The serf also usually owned or operated some means of production (land) for his own use.

In a modern capitalist economy, a worker does not own any means of production and works for a wage, with which he then goes into the market to purchase commodities. A worker working in a factory is not producing for his own consumption. In a capitalist economy, money IS the direct objective of production and exchange for a capitalist.

Profits can't be made except with the exploitation of the worker. That means paying the worker less than the value that the worker contributes through his work.

And yet, many of the countries who were as poor as Russia in 1917 are now significantly behind Russia in 2014

Nay, the human cost is simply transferred to the Third World.



Mmkay

Here we disagree about what capitalism is,

I'll use the google definition

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

essentially in this system, the private owners are free to trade and own industry free of intervention or state ownership. Thus capitalism is fundamentally based around this free exchange as opposed to coerced exchange in which any private individual is not free to partake in the system. Whether that be due to the banning of private trade in that industry, with the state in whatever form dictating the trade or the state intervening in the trade for whatever reason.

I am not a libertarian, so my stance is not unfettered capitalism, I am a utilitarian and have no idealogical political philosophical bias to capitalism or other economic systems, however I am in support of a mixed market economy due to my adherence to the principle of the price mechanism and market equilibrium. However I would accept that due to conditions such as externalities e.g environmental damage, government intervention and the loss of liberty is justified, or perhaps to intervene to redistribute wealth to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in society.

What I contend is your supposed relationship between the worker and the capitalist you adopt a victim mentality when you speak of the worker. this is wrong the worker has limitless opportunity within a market economy, if the worker puts their mind to a goal and becomes the product of their own vision they can too achieve 'success' if they so desire. Yes equal opportunity is not available which is why measures such as banning private education or subsidizing poorer students entry to higher education is paramount, however we also have to respect the raw power of the capitalist economy to provide for the members of that economy, including the workers, for the lowest 25% of Americans standard of living was double that of the average worker in the USSR in the 1980s.

Profits don't represent the exploitation of the worker, they merely represent the creation of value within the economy, signalling to the producer that they are contributing to the common good.

You can't compare Russia with say Kenya for example, apples and oranges.

'The 3rd world' as you put it has seen millions of people be lifted out of absolute poverty, companies such as nike as met with rejoice when they set up factories in areas such as India as they are putting rice in the food bowls of hungry families.

[Marxaveli]

The Austrian school and Neo-classical theories are pseudoscience - since they are inherently flawed because they rely on subjective theories (such as marginal utility) to explain economics (economic idealism), but it is OBJECTIVE social forces (class relations) that shape the economy - empirical material conditions.

But perhaps more importantly, they are pseudoscientific because they have an ideological agenda - and that agenda is none other than the preservation of the capitalist system.

[Marxaveli]

Profits don't represent the exploitation of the worker, they merely represent the creation of value within the economy, signalling to the producer that they are contributing to the common good.


This is utter nonsense on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. If you really believe this idealist bullshit than you are more naive than I thought.

Profits are the unpaid labor of the working class - because it is labor that produces social value, not capital. Workers produce more value than they are compensated for, and that extra value (called surplus) is pocketed by the parasite class *coughCaptialistscough*. Essentially, workers have to sell their labor power to survive, while capitalists don't have to work because they live off the labor of the working class. Common good my ass. They are contributing to their class interest, and to do that REQUIRES the exploitation of the worker.

[liberlict]

Sometimes when we touch, the honesty's too much, and I have to close my eyes and hide.

[Marxaveli]

Maybe because the LTV is empirically correct, and the Austrians and Neo-Classical theorists try their hardest either to (unsuccessfully) disprove it, or ignore it entirely because it represents serious political implications that go against the ideological agenda of these frameworks, whose primary goal is to protect the capitalist system rather than explain it objectively? Just a thought.

[liberlict]

1929 The Man Who Predicted the Depression

"Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today.

Mises's ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome "Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel" ("The Theory of Money and Credit"). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn't exactly a beach read at that.

Taking his cue from David Hume and David Ricardo, Mises explained how the banking system was endowed with the singular ability to expand credit and with it the money supply, and how this was magnified by government intervention. Left alone, interest rates would adjust such that only the amount of credit would be used as is voluntarily supplied and demanded. But when credit is force-fed beyond that (call it a credit gavage), grotesque things start to happen.

Government-imposed expansion of bank credit distorts our "time preferences," or our desire for saving versus consumption. Government-imposed interest rates artificially below rates demanded by savers leads to increased borrowing and capital investment beyond what savers will provide. This causes temporarily higher employment, wages and consumption.

Ordinarily, any random spikes in credit would be quickly absorbed by the system—the pricing errors corrected, the half-baked investments liquidated, like a supple tree yielding to the wind and then returning. But when the government holds rates artificially low in order to feed ever higher capital investment in otherwise unsound, unsustainable businesses, it creates the conditions for a crash. Everyone looks smart for a while, but eventually the whole monstrosity collapses under its own weight through a credit contraction or, worse, a banking collapse.

The system is dramatically susceptible to errors, both on the policy side and on the entrepreneurial side. Government expansion of credit takes a system otherwise capable of adjustment and resilience and transforms it into one with tremendous cyclical volatility.

"Theorie des Geldes" did not become the playbook for policy makers. The 1920s were marked by the brave new era of the Federal Reserve system promoting inflationary credit expansion and with it permanent prosperity. The nerve of this Doubting-Thomas, perma-bear, crazy Kraut! Sadly, poor Ludwig was very nearly alone in warning of the collapse to come from this credit expansion. In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises's script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped. Following Mises's logic, was this a failure of capitalism, or a failure of hubris?

Mises's solution follows logically from his warnings. You can't fix what's broken by breaking it yet again. Stop the credit gavage. Stop inflating. Don't encourage consumption, but rather encourage saving and the repayment of debt. Let all the lame businesses fail—no bailouts. (You see where I'm going with this.) The distortions must be removed or else the precipice from which the system will inevitably fall will simply grow higher and higher.

Mises started getting some much-deserved respect once "Theorie des Geldes" was finally published in English in 1934. It is unfortunate that it required such a disaster for people to take heed of what was the one predictive, scholarly explanation of what was happening.

But then, just Mises's bad luck, along came John Maynard Keynes's tome "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government's coffers.

He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn't even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.

Fast forward 70-some years, during which we saw Keynesianism's repeated disappointments, the end of the gold standard, persistent inflation with intermittent inflationary recessions and banking crises, culminating in Alan Greenspan's "Great Moderation" and a subsequent catastrophic collapse in housing and banking. Where do we find ourselves? At a point of profound insight gained through economic logic, trial and error, and objective empiricism? Or right back where we started?

With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one.

How curious it is that the guy who wrote the script depicting our never ending story of government-induced credit expansion, inflation and collapse has remained so persistently forgotten. Must we sit through yet another performance of this tragic tale?"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692

2007: Austrians Vs. keynesians



N25vJG1u6zE

Now marx:

Emiseration of the workers---nope (though apparently he addressed this in Theories of Surplus Value (but that's easy to predict the lotto numbers after the fact)).
Competition leads to monopoly (nope, did not understand diseconomies of scale).

Marx's problem is that he didn't understand money; he though that if somebody is getting money, someone else must be losing it).

[Marxaveli]

Except Marx predicted "The Depression" long before Hayek or Mises were even a thought.

[Schumpeter]

Keynesians reject the LTV aswel. Infact the LTV is widely rejected by academic economists and I know of no mainstream OECD politician which would advocate an economic system based on it. Even parties such as the Danish left party are mere social democrats, LTV is only accepted by those on the revolutionary left, which is an ever dwindling tiny minority.

[Marxaveli]

Keynesians reject the LTV aswel. Infact the LTV is widely rejected by academic economists and I know of no mainstream OECD politician which would advocate an economic system based on it. Even parties such as the Danish left party are mere social democrats, LTV is only accepted by those on the revolutionary left, which is an ever dwindling tiny minority.

Of course they don't accept it, because as I said before, it presents an inconvenient truth that is antithetical to the legitimacy of the capitalist system. Much in the same way Christian fundamentalists don't accept the theory of evolution to be truth, because it has inconvenient implications for the power of the church and Christian ideology/doctrine in general.

But just because these things aren't accepted by the dominant powers of society doesn't mean they aren't true, and in fact, more often then not, its quite the opposite. Your point of only revolutionary leftists accepting the LTV as truth is moot, at best.

[motion denied]

Not that it means anything, but I know quite a few academics who accept the LTV.

And, oh, how shocking!, the OECD does not support marxian analysis. But wait, even the radical Danish left party does not support it!

Your last post lacks arguments. Utter garbage.

[Schumpeter]

Of course they don't accept it, because as I said before, it presents an inconvenient truth that is antithetical to the legitimacy of the capitalist system. Much in the same way Christian fundamentalists don't accept the theory of evolution to be truth, because it has inconvenient implications for the power of the church and Christian ideology/doctrine in general.

But just because these things are accepted by the dominant powers of society doesn't mean they aren't true, and in fact, more often then not, its quite the opposite.

I could turn that on its head and propose that the Marxists be akin to Christianp fundamentalists. You haven't made an argument you've just said "I'm right". The LTV deserves a thread on its own.

[Marxaveli]

I could turn that on its head and propose that the Marxists be akin to Christianp fundamentalists. You haven't made an argument you've just said "I'm right". The LTV deserves a thread on its own.

Except, the whole notion of Marxism being a religion has also been thoroughly debunked:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hereby-contest-marxisms-t176745/index.html?t=176745&highlight=marxism+religion

So no, you can't.

[Schumpeter]

Except, the whole notion of Marxism being a religion has also been thoroughly debunked:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hereby-contest-marxisms-t176745/index.html?t=176745&highlight=marxism+religion

So no, you can't.

Replying with memes isn't debunking, funny how such a vapid response got the most 'thanks'.

[DDR]

I could turn that on its head and propose that the Marxists be akin to Christianp fundamentalists. You haven't made an argument you've just said "I'm right".

The difference here is that the LTV commes from a scientific analysis of the capitalist productive system. If you want fundamentalism I would give you the best example: The Invisible Hand of Market.


The LTV deserves a thread on its own.

Lurk moar, there should be lots of them already open. Search thingy on top.

[Schumpeter]

The difference here is that the LTV commes from a scientific analysis of the capitalist productive system. If you want fundamentalism I would give you the best example: The Invisible Hand of Market.



Lurk moar, there should be lots of them already open. Search thingy on top.

Yeah I know I just didn't want to expand this thread.

[Marxaveli]

Replying with memes isn't debunking, funny how such a vapid response got the most 'thanks'.

Um, there a ton of posts in there that destroy the premise of Marxism being a religion. Ostrinski's post on page 3 is probably the best of the bunch, but fucking A there is a ton of them that destroy the OP.

[liberlict]

Except Marx predicted "The Depression" long before Hayek or Mises were even a thought.

Marx predicted business cycles, which is a banal truism, wasn't discovered by him or improved upon.

[Sinister Intents]

Marx predicted business cycles, which is a banal truism, wasn't discovered by him or improved upon.

Have you read any Marx? Marx predicted and has shown how capitalism goes through crises that are detrimental and expose how capitalism is vastly unsustainable and will eventually collapse in on itself.

[WilliamGreen]

Don't respond to trolls in a rushed or attackive manner.

Simply allow the heavy weights to post an intelligent reply show limited scope of said trolls knowledge which usually limits out at a first year philosophy or economics student.

And when the standard change from calm professional to belligerent ego due to an opinion which is assumed as self begins educate and or re-enforce that respect is a must.

As usual it will end in a ban because most of the time it follows the pattern lol :rolleyes:

[WilliamGreen]

Haha I should take my own medicine, I need to study my english more.

[liberlict]

Have you read any Marx? Marx predicted and has shown how capitalism goes through crises that are detrimental and expose how capitalism is vastly unsustainable and will eventually collapse in on itself.

Yes, Marxian crisis theory has been refuted by Nobuo Okishio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem)

[Sinister Intents]

Yes, Marxian crisis theory has been refuted by Nobuo Okishio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem)

Have you not noticed the crises taking place yourself? They're going to constantly occur until the system collapses. Its socialism or extinction!

[Marxaveli]

@Liberlict Except it hasn't, as 2008 proved.

[Marxaveli]

Have you not noticed the crises taking place yourself? They're going to constantly occur until the system collapses. Its socialism or extinction!

I don't know about extinction, but the objections against capitalism do not have to be this extreme to advocate a more rational and humane system anyways.

[liberlict]

Have you not noticed the crises taking place yourself? They're going to constantly occur until the system collapses. Its socialism or extinction!

So goes the Marxist mantra. Marx thought the ' final collapse' was was imminent 150 years ago. I wonder if in 150 years time you alarmists will still be warning of this economic armageddon. :lol:

[Marxaveli]

So goes the Marxist mantra. Marx thought the ' final collapse' was was imminent 150 years ago. I wonder if in 150 years time you alarmists will still be warning of this economic armageddon. :lol:

No he didn't. In none of his works did he ever give a date or even a time frame as to when capitalism would collapse.

[Schumpeter]

Have you not noticed the crises taking place yourself? They're going to constantly occur until the system collapses. Its socialism or extinction!

Its a bit ironic, say what you will of what real socialism is. But the command control economy is central to socialism, whether or not this command control economy constitutes to the benefits of the workers is where you may contend it being labelled socialist however you must concede that the command control economy is merely being used as a mean for a different end.

Where am I going with this?

Simply put, command control economic systems have failed on scales even more spectacularly than capitalism (USSR), you must also ask yourself of the boom times, what booms do socialist economies have to rival that of plentiful booms of the capitalist economies? Or perhaps the dichotomy should be market/command and control?

[Sinister Intents]

So goes the Marxist mantra. Marx thought the ' final collapse' was was imminent 150 years ago. I wonder if in 150 years time you alarmists will still be warning of this economic armageddon. :lol:

Its gonna collapse sometime and capitalism continuously shows to be excessively unsustainable. 2008 shows that and the capitalists are gonna continue to try to keep the system alive, they've taken it to a macabre science of how to keep it alive. When it collapses it may or may not take humanity with it. I feel socialism is inevitable sometime in the future, and capitalism will die, and hopefully never come back.

Makes me think of this song for some reason:
Landmine Marathon - Foul Revolt

Your sneer draws back past curtains past stabbing regret and
remorse bloodletting, bloodletting, bloodletting from death
sets the course. There is no dividing favour blue blood stains
the say abominations are ripped from existence. Forgotten
kings emerge philistines faded faces are burned and bled.
You're a part of the cycle you must part from man and this
place. It may begin again but not today
I don't think this song is anticapitalist, but this topic makes me think of it for some reason at the moment.

[Marxaveli]

Its a bit ironic, say what you will of what real socialism is. But the command control economy is central to socialism, whether or not this command control economy constitutes to the benefits of the workers is where you may contend it being labelled socialist however you must concede that the command control economy is merely being used as a mean for a different end.

Where am I going with this?

Simply put, command control economic systems have failed on scales even more spectacularly than capitalism (USSR), you must also ask yourself of the boom times, what booms do socialist economies have to rival that of plentiful booms of the capitalist economies? Or perhaps the dichotomy should be market/command and control?

False dichotomy, since the USSR was also capitalist. State involvement is completely irrelevant in distinguishing between capitalism and socialism. If there is a state of ANY kind, that means classes exist. And if classes exist, socialism does not, by default. Period.

[liberlict]

No he didn't. In none of his works did he ever give a date or even a time frame as to when capitalism would collapse.

But the Austrians did. Austrians always know.

[Schumpeter]

False dichotomy, since the USSR was also capitalist. State involvement is completely irrelevant in distinguishing between capitalism and socialism. If there is a state of ANY kind, that means classes exist. And if classes exist, socialism does not, by default. Period.

The USSR banned private trade for a long time. The USSR was not capitalist. 90% of firms were state run, that is not capitalism, it is far from it. Socialism can exist with classes, what are you on about, socialism is an economic system.

[Marxaveli]

But the Austrians did. Austrians always know.

Yes, and that is why we laugh at them - because their economic idealism, subjective pie-in-the-sky bullshit is about as scientific as Noah's Ark.

[Sinister Intents]

The USSR banned private trade for a long time. The USSR was not capitalist. 90% of firms were state run, that is not capitalism, it is far from it. Socialism can exist with classes, what are you on about, socialism is an economic system.

State run firms make it state capitalist exactly, so yes the USSR was capitalist, they also had a money economy which gives further evidence that there was capitalism. Socialism cannot exist with classes, socialists seek to get rid of all hierarchy. State rule is very hierarchal, and while there is a state there is no socialism because states are instruments of class rule. Socialism is not just economic. Perhaps you should read Capital very carefully, I'm reading the first volume for the third time. I have a learning disability so it benefits me to read something multiple times, and I won't read the second volume of capital until I'm absolutely sure I'm an expert on the first volume.

[liberlict]

economic idealism, subjective pie-in-the-sky bullshit is about as scientific as Noah's Ark.

Haha. That's funny to me, because that's about how I feel about the communist project.

[Marxaveli]

[QUOTE]The USSR banned private trade for a long time.Trade is not the defining element of capitalism, as pointed out earlier in this thread.



The USSR was not capitalist. 90% of firms were state run, that is not capitalism, it is far from it.It was very capitalist. It had a state. It had classes. It produced commodities. It participated in global markets, and in fact, that was really what the 'Cold War' was all about - competition between two super powers for dominion of global markets. The USSR was capitalist, whether you like it or not, just as America is capitalist, Sweden is capitalist, and so on. Now, the state may have had a larger and more centralized role in production than your 'ideal form' of capitalism, but it was capitalist all the same. Just because the state assumed the function of private individuals or firms in liberal capitalism doesn't mean it ceased to be capitalism, because it most certainly still was.



Socialism can exist with classes, what are you on about, socialism is an economic system.
No, it cannot. Socialism is defined as classless, stateless and moneyless society where the means of production are held in common. Unless of course you are a Stalinist, who think 'socialism in one country' is possible (it's not). Or if your definition of socialism is quite literally, "anything I want it to be".

[TiberiusGracchus]

Fire away

Bourgeoisie schools of economics has some great flaws...

They are take an abstract, a-historical approach to economics. Their interest lies purely in administrating the capitalist economy and some questions that are fundamental to us are not even raised within the bourgeoise traditions, which leave them with a more shallow perspective and a more limited source of knowledge.

Most of them start with (often deeply flawed) praxeological theories about the rational individual. The rationa individual is not to be critcised and explained. He is taken for granted. And the social context around the individual is to a large extent also taken for granted, and if not it is seen as something that is explained by the micro-foundational theories of the behaviour of rational individuals. Marxism does not take anything for granted.


Another problem is that bourgeoisie economics is rooted in the deductivist method. Deductivism seeks to "explain" something by deducing or predicting a statement about that something from a set of initial conditions, assumptions, axioms and a covering law and/or some other form of constant conjunction of events which drives the inferential machinery. These conjunctions, where for every event y there exists a set of events x1, x2...xn such that y and x1, x2...xn are regularly conjoined, only occur in, and are constitutive of, closed systems. There are, however, very few spontaneously occurring closed systems in the natural world, and virtually no non-trivial ones in the socio-economic world. Using deductivism, therefore, means engineering artificially closed systems by means of known falsehoods, reducing neoclassical economics to "the economics of nowhere" and removes all it's explanatory power.








Also this is quite fun about how different traditions understand capitalist crisis:

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2zivtcy.jpg

[liberlict]

Yes, and that is why we laugh at them - because their economic idealism, subjective pie-in-the-sky bullshit is about as scientific as Noah's Ark.

Science = making hypotheses and proving them. Ask yourself, who had more insight. Marx, with 'a spectre is haunting europe', in 1848, followed by a reactionary annihilation of communist forces, or Mises who could predict to the MONTH when an economic collapse was going occur in 1930, & Peter Schiff who could predicted the YEAR the recent depression.

WATCH IT!

It's credit inflation!



N25vJG1u6zE

Tak9ODlBJgM



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692

Are you sure yr on the right ship? If you want to be a scientist? I'm not tryna be an ahole, but if anyone is being 'pie in the sky', it's you.

[The Jay]

You are aware that there are many "schools" of economics aren't you? That's like asking if we like or hate food.

[The Jay]

Haha. That's funny to me, because that's about how I feel about the communist project.


Well that's a purely subjective thing to say and I can't refute your feelings. All that can really be said to you is: I disagree. If you were to post more things on the why of it all then I could actually give a worth-while response.

[liberlict]

Well that's a purely subjective thing to say and I can't refute your feelings. All that can really be said to you is: I disagree. If you were to post more things on the why of it all then I could actually give a worth-while response.

I'm not much into subjectivity also (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2716461&postcount=55)

[argeiphontes]

Except, the whole notion of Marxism being a religion has also been thoroughly debunked:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hereby-contest-marxisms-t176745/index.html?t=176745&highlight=marxism+religion

So no, you can't.

Unfair, this was before my time on the board. I'm sure I could whip up some Jungian interpretation. Class consciousness = Holy spirit ;)


Yes, Marxian crisis theory has been refuted by Nobuo Okishio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okishio%27s_theorem)

Actually, Okishio's Theorem was disproved when Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman developed the Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marxian economics, which rehabilitates all of Marx's results.

I'd also like to add that, as for the LTV, Labor Theories of Value come from Adam Smith and Ricardo, what Marx did is separate price from value so that he could explain supply and demand. Paul Cockshott (a member here) has a paper in which he shows a 95% correlation between price and labor time in various economies for which data is available.


Its a bit ironic, say what you will of what real socialism is. But the command control economy is central to socialism

Wrong. Capitalism, socialism, feudalism, slavery, etc are social systems of production of goods and services. What defines capitalism is the specific social relations to the means of production, that are different across all of the historical systems. What defines socialism is giving the producers of value actual control over the means of production, and letting them accrue and distribute the total product that they produce, instead of having that claimed by another class that happens to have ownership of that means by virtue of a legal fiction known as "private property." (Bourgeois law doesn't distinguish between personal possessions and private property in the means of production, which most of us do.)

I'm a Market Socialist, and there is no "command and control" of the economy. Any economy can have "command and control," including a capitalist one. Soviet Union anyone? There might have been some command and control in fascism as well.


You are aware that there are many "schools" of economics aren't you? That's like asking if we like or hate food.

Exactly. Economics isn't that kind of science. It's perfectly possible for there to be multiple theories of economics that are not only internally consistent but that probably have similar explanatory power. The choice between them will be made on ideological grounds as well as efficacy. Subjective value theories arose in response to Marx, presumably for ideological reasons. However, I'd take another look at Marxian economics by actually reading about it, including the TSSI and Kliman's description of the current "crisis" (such as it is). There was a recent study released by Deloitte and Touche that basically showed Marx's falling rate of profit, which also explains corporate hoarding of cash and mainstream economist's calls for a negative savings rate to encourage investment, for example. There's a lot of good explanatory power there. Youtube is a good source for some of these guys, but I'm too lazy to do the searching for you. Also the Kapitalism101 blog has a great series of videos on Marxian econ.

Anyway, I need another beer...

[Baseball]

What defines socialism is giving the producers of value actual control over the means of production, and letting them accrue and distribute the total product that they produce,


I'm a Market Socialist,

Where is the "market" in "market socialism" when the producers of, say, pens determine amount of pens to be produced, design and type of pens, where to distribute said pens, rather than those decisions being determined by actual demand ie the market?

[Dialectical Wizard]

The Austrian School is basically bourgeois economics on steroids and pseudoscientific as fuck. Those theories have been refuted long ago, only libertarians and some crazy economists take that shit seriously. I would say that Marxian economics is by far the most superior of all economic schools right now, because it deals with capitalism as it is and not like some bourgeois economists do with their idealistic approaches. Although some theories within Keynesianism can be quite insightful sometimes.

[argeiphontes]

Where is the "market" in "market socialism" when the producers of, say, pens determine amount of pens to be produced, design and type of pens, where to distribute said pens, rather than those decisions being determined by actual demand ie the market?

Supply and demand operates in markets to allocate production, just like you're saying. Since market socialism has a market, it operates based on supply and demand. Any firm not producing what the market wants will go out of business because it won't be able to sell its pens, because no one wants them.

[Marxaveli]

Science = making hypotheses and proving them. Ask yourself, who had more insight. Marx, with 'a spectre is haunting europe', in 1848, followed by a reactionary annihilation of communist forces, or Mises who could predict to the MONTH when an economic collapse was going occur in 1930, & Peter Schiff who could predicted the YEAR the recent depression.

WATCH IT!

It's credit inflation!



N25vJG1u6zE

Tak9ODlBJgM



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692

Are you sure yr on the right ship? If you want to be a scientist? I'm not tryna be an ahole, but if anyone is being 'pie in the sky', it's you.

It's not about making predictions. Anyone can sit here and make a random prediction and it may or may not come to pass. I don't care if Mises could predict to the very fucking MINUTE when the crisis would occur.

In terms of explanatory power for understanding how capitalism actually works, Marxism blows your hero Mises out of the water easily. The reason is because Marxism isn't grounded in ideology, but in an objective and empirical analysis of how capitalism ACTUALLY works - not how it ought to work. Neoclassical economics and the Austrian school assume the accept (and even encourage) that capitalism is the best of all worlds without the slightest bit of critical thought. It is complete pseudoscience at its best. All they do is navigate within the system, without actually ever questioning it - therefore they lack self-critique and are thus invalid frameworks for developing a legitimate theoretical explanation of economics.

Marxism = science

Neoclassical Economics & the Austrian school = creationism applied to economics.

Again, only one seeing pie in the sky here is you and your libertarian brethren.

[Illegalitarian]

I liked the part where Marxism was called a religion only to post videos of the One True God Mises (PBUH) making predictions on the dot.


Did u guize no Nostradamus predicted 9/11 over 5 thousand years ago checkmate atheists lol :rolleyes:

[Baseball]

Supply and demand operates in markets to allocate production, just like you're saying. Since market socialism has a market, it operates based on supply and demand. Any firm not producing what the market wants will go out of business because it won't be able to sell its pens, because no one wants them.

So where is the "socialism" in market socialism? After all, if the pen firm can go out of business because its customers do not wish the pens it chooses to produce, where is the "actual control of the means of productions" of which these "producers of value" possess, and in what sense are they controlling what they accrue and distribute from that which they produce?

[argeiphontes]

So where is the "socialism" in market socialism? After all, if the pen firm can go out of business because its customers do not wish the pens it chooses to produce, where is the "actual control of the means of productions" of which these "producers of value" possess, and in what sense are they controlling what they accrue and distribute from that which they produce?

Even in full communism, production units (firms) are subject to liquidation and reallocation of their productive resources. There is no guarantee that demand or need will remain the same forever even if something is planned correctly right now. So there is never a guarantee of not "going out of business" (reallocation), even in full communism.

In Market Socialism workers own their firm in common. Since the firm is democratically managed, that is "actual control of the means of production". Banks are also under democratic control, and this can obviously extend to the community, so there is at least some democratic control over investment in the means of production, too.

Since labor is what Schweickart referred to as the "residual claimant" (as opposed to a cost of doing business), the profit (surplus value) is distributed to the people doing the production in these democratic enterprises. There is a tax on capital but no income, sales, or VATs.

(Hell, I'd love for some party to run on that kind of a taxation platform today, they might be able to turn it into a popular issue and a transitional demand, along with public banking since everybody loves to hate banks. The best thing about market socialism is that it's possible and it's coming (http://www.usw.org/our_union/co-ops).)

[Svoboda]

The Austrian School is basically bourgeois economics on steroids and pseudoscientific as fuck. Those theories have been refuted long ago, only libertarians and some crazy economists take that shit seriously. I would say that Marxian economics is by far the most superior of all economic schools right now, because it deals with capitalism as it is and not like some bourgeois economists do with their idealistic approaches. Although some theories within Keynesianism can be quite insightful sometimes.

OK, it's not pseudoscience because it's not science at all. No school of economics, unless you actually consider Marxism a school, seriousley considers economics to be a science or at least a science with a capital S. In terms of them being refuted...no they haven't been because again it's a social science that can't be fully refuted and as Austrians claim their theory has never really been applied...so it hasn't been refuted. Many Austrians are not popular in the mainstream but Hayek is for the most part very well respected.

Also, what do you mean that Marxism "deals with capitalism as it is"? Marxism still often functions under a 19th century conception of capitalism when a true proletariat existed which, at least in the Western world, is no longer the case. As for the "idealistic approaches" that also sound silly coming from a Marxist where the core of Marxist analysis is based from anti-empirist Heglian philosophy. Mainstream neo-classical economists tries to actually answer real questions and tries to advocate policy that can increase general well being. They are realists and despite us maybe questioning how much what they put forward will actually improve society I believe their sincerity should not be questioned. Marxism has done almost nothing to push forward social improvement except creating some sometimes clever critiques. Perhaps the capitalist does exploit the worker to extract surplus labor and the relationship as Marxists argue is wrong. That's fine and you can probably prove that ethically without an enormous amount of difficulty. In application though of how to resolve the problem I see no meaningful, let allow realistic, means to resolve the problem that is being proposed today. Marxists have squabbled over these issues getting nowhere while more and more splits and factions occur while Capitalism, despite it's shaky conditions, has drastically improved the standard of living and general well being of the vast majority of the people of this earth who have even vaguely adopted the system. There is a reason Marxists are still influential in Sociology, Philosophy and History departments, but are extinct in Economics departments

[Svoboda]

The Austrian school and Neo-classical theories are pseudoscience - since they are inherently flawed because they rely on subjective theories (such as marginal utility) to explain economics (economic idealism), but it is OBJECTIVE social forces (class relations) that shape the economy - empirical material conditions.

But perhaps more importantly, they are pseudoscientific because they have an ideological agenda - and that agenda is none other than the preservation of the capitalist system.
What are you talking about? How is Marxism an objective observable truth and not based on subjective theories? Class struggle is an idea not an empirical truth just like marginal utility is an idea. As for the "ideological agenda" what does that mean? Are economists paid stooges of the capitalists whose sole purpose is to justify a corrupt system? Really? Their, agenda, as I'm sure your agenda and all individuals who seriously and independently look at societal problems, is to improve society for the better for everyone. Regardless of their views it should not be denied that Milton Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson or Marx were all extraordinary brilliant individuals who tried to answer very difficult problems.

[argeiphontes]

OK, it's not pseudoscience because it's not science at all. No school of economics, unless you actually consider Marxism a school, seriousley considers economics to be a science or at least a science with a capital S. In terms of them being refuted...no they haven't been because again it's a social science that can't be fully refuted


Yes.



Also, what do you mean that Marxism "deals with capitalism as it is"? Marxism still often functions under a 19th century conception of capitalism when a true proletariat existed which, at least in the Western world, is no longer the case.


That betrays lack of even rudimentary understanding of Marxism. 'Proletariat' is a technical term that refers to a class that does not own the means of production (capital), yet has no choice but to work it, in the social arrangement known as 'wage labor'. There will be a proletariat as long as there is capitalism. This is true by definition.



There is a reason Marxists are still influential in Sociology, Philosophy and History departments, but are extinct in Economics departments

Hegemonic ideology? ;)

[Svoboda]

That betrays lack of even rudimentary understanding of Marxism. 'Proletariat' is a technical term that refers to a class that does not own the means of production (capital), yet has no choice but to work it, in the social arrangement known as 'wage labor'. There will be a proletariat as long as there is capitalism. This is true by definition.

That's fine but the basic point was that Marxists are stuck in an old mode of analysis that has little to say about how to advance society forward today. Revolutionary class struggle is devoid of meaning today and devoid of any active support with a real program of action. The supposedly radical leftists parties in Europe that have some support seem to be little more than anti-austerity along with protectionist economic policy.

[argeiphontes]

That's fine but the basic point was that Marxists are stuck in an old mode of analysis that has little to say about how to advance society forward today. Revolutionary class struggle is devoid of meaning today and devoid of any active support with a real program of action. The supposedly radical leftists parties in Europe that have some support seem to be little more than anti-austerity along with protectionist economic policy.

I don't think the mode of analysis is incorrect but I do think that the proper conclusions about action aren't being drawn because Marxists are stuck in the past, and are limited by ideology and dogma. So, I agree with that post in general.

[Baseball]

Even in full communism, production units (firms) are subject to liquidation and reallocation of their productive resources. There is no guarantee that demand or need will remain the same forever even if something is planned correctly right now. So there is never a guarantee of not "going out of business" (reallocation), even in full communism.

This isn't really true. In reality there' s no guarantee. However the communists claim that the workers at the firm are in control, that they decide what to produce, when to produce ect. So from the communist angle, its true only so far as the workers or community agree to the reallocation.


In Market Socialism workers own their firm in common. Since the firm is democratically managed, that is "actual control of the means of production".

But this also isn't really true. These workers, however democratically organized, would still have to base their actions upon the market. The market, people buying and not buying, is what controls the decisions of these firms.
And this isn't a mere matter of semantics.


Banks are also under democratic control, and this can obviously extend to the community, so there is at least some democratic control over investment in the means of production, too.

What does it mean to say "some democratic control"? Where does the rest of the control lay?


Since labor is what Schweickart referred to as the "residual claimant" (as opposed to a cost of doing business), the profit (surplus value) is distributed to the people doing the production in these democratic enterprises.

Labor is a cost of business-- If the same work can be accomplished with 10 workers rather than 12 then resources have been saved.
But in any event-- since profit is distributed amongst these workers, is the objective of these firms to accrue profit? Do they face problems in their daily operations, and perhaps ultimately"liquidation" if profit is not accrued to some level or at all?

[Marxaveli]

Class struggle is an idea not an empirical truth just like marginal utility is an idea.

Wrong - class struggle is an objective and observable social phenomena - every bit as much as the sun setting in the west and rising in the east is. Marginal utility is an idea, and a absurd one at that. Your logic is the same nonsense that creationists use to deny evolution.


As for the "ideological agenda" what does that mean? Are economists paid stooges of the capitalists whose sole purpose is to justify a corrupt system? Really? Their, agenda, as I'm sure your agenda and all individuals who seriously and independently look at societal problems, is to improve society for the better for everyone.I'm afraid you have been greatly misinformed, and/or have a rosy picture of things comrade. For mainstream economists, ideology trumps science. Neoclassical economics is designed to work within only a capitalist framework rather than question capitalist system at all. As a result, for these economists ideology trumps science, so anything that is an inconvenient truth to supports of the status quo must be swept under the rug or misconstrued to mean something else. Social problems don't exist independently - they exist and interact as a result of a particular set of existing social relationships that are intrinsic to the system itself. As for mainstream economists wanting to solve those problems, perhaps some do (most of them are probably liberals) but their solutions are idealistic at best.

[Marxaveli]

[QUOTE]OK, it's not pseudoscience because it's not science at all. No school of economics, unless you actually consider Marxism a school, seriousley considers economics to be a science or at least a science with a capital S. In terms of them being refuted...no they haven't been because again it's a social science that can't be fully refuted and as Austrians claim their theory has never really been applied...so it hasn't been refuted. Many Austrians are not popular in the mainstream but Hayek is for the most part very well respected.Oh yes! The good ol', smug Ivory Tower excuse: if it cannot be put in a lab with all variables controlled to prove a theoretical outcome, it isn't a science!! What a convenient cop out.


Also, what do you mean that Marxism "deals with capitalism as it is"?Meaning, Marxism looks at how capitalism ACTUALLY works, and not how it ought to work in some neo-classical, freedonia libertarian fairyland.



Marxism still often functions under a 19th century conception of capitalism when a true proletariat existed which, at least in the Western world, is no longer the case. Nope, wrong again. Marxism has done an outstanding job at analyzing the development of contemporary capitalism - you choosing to ignore that fact doesn't make it not so. Secondly, are you denying that class struggle and people objectively having to sell their labor to survive to a property owning class no longer exists? If so, you are living on another planet, or you are just dense as fuck - as most idealists are.


As for the "idealistic approaches" that also sound silly coming from a Marxist where the core of Marxist analysis is based from anti-empirist Heglian philosophy. Irrelevant. Marxism's origins having nothing to do with whether it is legit or not, since Marx himself was heavily critical of Hegel anyway for the very reason you stated. Your critique is no critique at all, sorry.


Mainstream neo-classical economists tries to actually answer real questions and tries to advocate policy that can increase general well being. They are realists and despite us maybe questioning how much what they put forward will actually improve society I believe their sincerity should not be questioned. Marxism has done almost nothing to push forward social improvement except creating some sometimes clever critiques. Nope. Marxism has far greater explanatory power than neo-classical economists could ever hope to dream of, which is why so many of them are going back and reading Capital Vol.1. Cause they know he was right (despite how much they will publically deny it, because of the political implications involved). Neo-classical economics has been debunked time and again, by actual existing real world material conditions that are contrary to the theoretical models they create.


Perhaps the capitalist does exploit the worker to extract surplus labor and the relationship as Marxists argue is wrong.
First correct thing I've seen you say.


That's fine and you can probably prove that ethically without an enormous amount of difficulty. In application though of how to resolve the problem I see no meaningful, let allow realistic, means to resolve the problem that is being proposed today. Marxists have been proposing a solution for over 150 years now - but of course the mainstream solution has to be within the capitalist framework. Meanwhile, mainstream economists keep spinning their wheels while us Marxists sit back and just shake our heads knowing the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. The overthrowing of capitalism is the ONLY solution to solving this problem. This isn't about ethics though, as capitalism doesn't operate based around what is ethical but what is objectively profitable. Class interests are objective, not subjective or ethical as you seem to suggest.



Marxists have squabbled over these issues getting nowhere while more and more splits and factions occur while Capitalism, despite it's shaky conditions, has drastically improved the standard of living and general well being of the vast majority of the people of this earth who have even vaguely adopted the system. Nope. It was revolutionary action, solidarity, protests, and mass violent struggle in general that improved the living standard and conditions for workers all over the globe. To attribute these gains to being something intrinsic to the capitalist system is plain silly and straight up incorrect. These gains had to be fought for, they weren't just handed out as you seem to suggest in your ahistorical view of things. Capitalism is driven by profits, not by human need. Without these struggles and gains, it would be the same old shit it was in the 19th century. It ain't that much better now anyway - the mass violence and genocide of imperialism is still an ongoing process, as is the exploitation, poverty, and the million other problems that come along with it. And furthermore, we are seeing many of these gains being rolled back or destroyed because it is not profitable to have them anymore. All this does is further strengthen the Marxist point that capitalism cannot be reformed, and must be destroyed entirely. Also, I'm sure most of Africa, South America and SE Asia would disagree with your proposition. Lastly, capitalism isn't something that is "adopted" (like a system of government is) but rather is objectively occurring as a result capital's expansion across the globe. Have you even read The Manifesto?



There is a reason Marxists are still influential in Sociology, Philosophy and History departments, but are extinct in Economics departmentsYea, its called cultural and ideological hegemony. Who do you think controls and determines the curriculum and how it is taught? It sure as hell aint the students. Marx and Marxism are greatly misconstrued and stripped of its revolutionary edge in most sociology, philosophy and history departments and ignored entirely in economic departments because he presented many inconvenient truths that have a negative implication on capitalism's legitimacy as a social organization of society. The ruling class will always slander and viciously attack and misconstrue those are a threat to their privileged and empowered positions - as Marx himself once said "the ruling ideas in any epoch are the ideas of its ruling class". Otherwise, we'd have been living under socialism a long time ago. That is the reason, so what is your point?

[argeiphontes]

This isn't really true. In reality there' s no guarantee. However the communists claim that the workers at the firm are in control, that they decide what to produce, when to produce ect. So from the communist angle, its true only so far as the workers or community agree to the reallocation.


What do you mean, it's not really true? Communists are going to have to reallocate shit every once in a while and they understand this. Yes, it won't be done with a market, it will be done democratically or whatever. But I don't care about the communist perspective, I was talking about market socialism. Non sequiturs don't really affect me.



But this also isn't really true. These workers, however democratically organized, would still have to base their actions upon the market. The market, people buying and not buying, is what controls the decisions of these firms.
And this isn't a mere matter of semantics.
First of all, if "people buying and not buying, is what controls the decisions of these firms" then the allocation is controlled by people. Vote with your dollar, consumer! Capitalists love to say that this is a benefit of markets, and I tend to agree. There is constant feedback about value and allocation.

Second of all, and I've said this about 15,000 times since I joined the board, capitalism is a social relation between people in a society, a way to decide how they're going to work their means of production. Socialism does away with these social relations and substitutes worker ownership and control. This is a different social relationship. The market can remain, that doesn't mean it's not socialism. Any reasonable economic system has to produce to meet demand. One problem with full-on communism is that they don't have a good way to balance what's produced with need, isn't it?



What does it mean to say "some democratic control"? Where does the rest of the control lay?
It's possible to buy and sell capital among firms without the bank interfering. In reality, though, macro level investment decisions are going to be under full democratic control if you think about it. Just a conceptual slip on my part. Ignore the man behind the keyboard.



Labor is a cost of business-- If the same work can be accomplished with 10 workers rather than 12 then resources have been saved.
Labor is a cost in capitalist firms because minimizing costs includes minimizing costs of labor. Socialist firms have no such imperative. Since profits are are distributed to workers, this part of the accounting pie is actually maximized. Can't you imagine a slightly different accounting system?



But in any event-- since profit is distributed amongst these workers, is the objective of these firms to accrue profit? Do they face problems in their daily operations, and perhaps ultimately"liquidation" if profit is not accrued to some level or at all?Of course the point is to maximize profit. It's a market system. That's what economic actors in a market system do. Profit is surplus value. It's the money workers take home to spend on other things in a society with division of labor. Yeay, profit. Profit makes the world go 'round. Profit lifts us up where we belong. All you need is profit.

As Schweickart said, profit is not a dirty word in market socialism. If you don't understand why that's true, then you don't understand that economic systems are social systems, as Marx did. Profit is a dirty word in capitalism because it accrues to a class that didn't produce it. Otherwise, "profit" is just surplus value.

edit: As for the last sentence, check the name of the system. It's called 'market' socialism. Consumer goods and services are allocated by market mechanism. It's obvious that firms can go out of business if they're not profitable. That's a fact of market allocation. No market socialist is trying to somehow escape or overlook this fact.

[Baseball]

First of all, if "people buying and not buying, is what controls the decisions of these firms" then the allocation is controlled by people. Vote with your dollar, consumer! Capitalists love to say that this is a benefit of markets, and I tend to agree. There is constant feedback about value and allocation.

Well, yes. I was simply pointing out that the workers of, say that pen factory, do not really "control" their means of production and asking how that jibes with socialism.


Second of all, and I've said this about 15,000 times since I joined the board, capitalism is a social relation between people in a society, a way to decide how they're going to work their means of production. Socialism does away with these social relations and substitutes worker ownership and control. This is a different social relationship.

There is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned industry.


The market can remain, that doesn't mean it's not socialism.

Yes, it does.


Any reasonable economic system has to produce to meet demand.

yes.


One problem with full-on communism is that they don't have a good way to balance what's produced with need, isn't it?

yes. But this is because socialism is not a reasonable economic system.

I
n reality, though, macro level investment decisions are going to be under full democratic control if you think about it.

How does this work in a "market"?




Labor is a cost in capitalist firms because minimizing costs includes minimizing costs of labor. Socialist firms have no such imperative.
Since profits are are distributed to workers, this part of the accounting pie is actually maximized. Can't you imagine a slightly different accounting system?

One would think that the socialist firm would care very much if there was 10, 50, 12 workers laboring there when it comes time to divide the profit.
But if they do not, then they will simply have to keep costs low elsewhere, which means in actual production.


Of course the point is to maximize profit. It's a market system. That's what economic actors in a market system do. Profit is surplus value. It's the money workers take home to spend on other things in a society with division of labor. Yeay, profit. Profit makes the world go 'round. Profit lifts us up where we belong. All you need is profit.

Ok. So the objective of production is to produce a profit. It is how success of the firm is measured. Fine.
But how does this measure up with socialism and its demand for production for need?


As Schweickart said, profit is not a dirty word in market socialism. If you don't understand why that's true, then you don't understand that economic systems are social systems, as Marx did. Profit is a dirty word in capitalism because it accrues to a class that didn't produce it. Otherwise, "profit" is just surplus value.

edit: As for the last sentence, check the name of the system. It's called 'market' socialism. Consumer goods and services are allocated by market mechanism. It's obvious that firms can go out of business if they're not profitable. That's a fact of market allocation. No market socialist is trying to somehow escape or overlook this fact.

OK-- so the market socialist system will operate just like the capitalist one- minus the capitalist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

They all suck except for technocrats.

[Dialectical Wizard]

They all suck except for technocrats.




You’re trolling right?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You’re trolling right?

Nope

[argeiphontes]

OK-- so the market socialist system will operate just like the capitalist one- minus the capitalist.

If that's how you want to look at it, that's fine with me. You're not required to share any of my beliefs. I've explained what I think socialism and capitalism are, and why market socialism means worker control, and how it differs from capitalism. All you've offered in return is gainsay, and now it's come full circle. So, now it's your turn to explain what capitalism and socialism is, and why market socialism is really capitalism.

You've been "arguing" against market socialism since at least 2011 based on my looking at historic threads. So I'm going to call you on your gainsay now. In order to have an argument, you'll have to take up a contrary position. An argument isn't just the automatic gainsay of everything the other person says.

kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

OK-- so the market socialist system will operate just like the capitalist one- minus the capitalist.

Or rather - one capitalist will be replaced with numerous small capitalists, resulting in a return to small commodity production. Or rather, they won't be replaced because market "socialism" is impossible.

[argeiphontes]

Or rather - one capitalist will be replaced with numerous small capitalists, resulting in a return to small commodity production. Or rather, they won't be replaced because market "socialism" is impossible.

Everyone will be a capitalist. On the contrary though, it's the most possible of all the schemes I've seen on this board. There's a lot to be said for market socialism's lack of idealist utopianism.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Everyone will be a capitalist. On the contrary though, it's the most possible of all the schemes I've seen on this board. There's a lot to be said for market socialism's lack of idealist utopianism.

Right - everyone will be a capitalist (or rather, would be if market "socialism" didn't blatantly go against the historic tendency of capitalism toward centralization), so why call it "socialism"? Communists demand the abolition, not sharing of capital - a change in the relations of production rather than everyone becoming a small shareholder.

This obsession with markets, cooperatives, "workers' self-management" - and the rot is so deep you can hear alleged "socialists" parroting Austrian "arguments" - is nothing more than a perversion of the old communist demand for workers' control of the means of production. This was a class demand. The workers, as a class, were to control the means of production which were to be socialized and centralized.

What market "socialists" want is a reactionary return to the period of small commodity production, as if a modern economy can be run on the same lines as the petty craft sector in the Jura at the dawn of capitalism. A genuine "market socialist" society couldn't even produce the rifles to defend itself from workers who want to abolish the market.

[Baseball]

If that's how you want to look at it, that's fine with me. You're not required to share any of my beliefs. I've explained what I think socialism and capitalism are, and why market socialism means worker control, and how it differs from capitalism. All you've offered in return is gainsay, and now it's come full circle. So, now it's your turn to explain what capitalism and socialism is, and why market socialism is really capitalism.

You've been "arguing" against market socialism since at least 2011 based on my looking at historic threads. So I'm going to call you on your gainsay now. In order to have an argument, you'll have to take up a contrary position. An argument isn't just the automatic gainsay of everything the other person says.

kQFKtI6gn9Y

You are making claims about "market socialism." I am asking you about these claims.

[argeiphontes]

You are making claims about "market socialism." I am asking you about these claims.

Fair enough. But then you can't just say "no" to everything I say. For example, if you don't think control of physical capital equals controls of the means of production, and that even market forces impinge on control of the means of production, then should supply a definition that will satisfy you and I can address it. Otherwise, we just disagree. That is perfectly fine, of course.

[argeiphontes]

Right - everyone will be a capitalist


I was making fun of you.



Communists demand the abolition, not sharing of capital - a change in the relations of production rather than everyone becoming a small shareholder.
Communists can demand anything they like. I demand market socialism. It has nothing to do with shareholding, as anyone familiar with the paradigm will know. There are no stocks or equities markets in market socialism.



production. This was a class demand. The workers, as a class, were to control the means of production which were to be socialized and centralized.
That is your requirement for your ideal society. I have different goals.



What market "socialists" want is a reactionary return to the period of small commodity production, as if a modern economy can be run on the same lines as the petty craft sector in the Jura at the dawn of capitalism. A genuine "market socialist" society couldn't even produce the rifles to defend itself from workers who want to abolish the market.Yes, the Mondragon cooperatives, the largest employers in the Basque region of Spain, are petty craftsmen. :laugh:

Nobody wants to abolish the market except magical-thinking communists who have no real alternatives to the market. The market socialist society is made of workers, and is democratic, so there is no one to defend against. Where are all these people trying to abolish the market now? Why doesn't capitalism need to defend itself against your marginal utopian dreams?

[Marxaveli]

Why doesn't capitalism need to defend itself against your marginal utopian dreams?

You couldn't be more wrong with this. Capitalism literally fights for its life everyday - if it didn't need to there would be no state apparatus present. Why do you think communism and most leftist thought in general is so demonized, and why its leading thinkers like Marx are so slandered? Because the capitalists are scared, and they should be.

I think it is you who is living the utopian pipe dream that somehow markets and socialism are compatible.

[liberlict]

It's not about making predictions. Anyone can sit here and make a random prediction and it may or may not come to pass. I don't care if Mises could predict to the very fucking MINUTE when the crisis would occur.

In terms of explanatory power for understanding how capitalism actually works, Marxism blows your hero Mises out of the water easily. The reason is because Marxism isn't grounded in ideology, but in an objective and empirical analysis of how capitalism ACTUALLY works - not how it ought to work. Neoclassical economics and the Austrian school assume the accept (and even encourage) that capitalism is the best of all worlds without the slightest bit of critical thought. It is complete pseudoscience at its best. All they do is navigate within the system, without actually ever questioning it - therefore they lack self-critique and are thus invalid frameworks for developing a legitimate theoretical explanation of economics.

Marxism = science

Neoclassical Economics & the Austrian school = creationism applied to economics.

Again, only one seeing pie in the sky here is you and your libertarian brethren.

Really? You're a hard man to impress! :D

I think you might be surprised how much Mises, who is a long way from being my hero, considered alternative production systems. He spent about half his life doing it, in fact.

In a way, he stress tested Marxian philosophy in the same way that Marx did capitalist production. He broke it down into all it's pieces, and took all its arguments to their logical conclusion.

Disagree with him if you like, but don't accuse the man of not understanding communism.

BTW, you have a very soft criteria for what counts as a 'science'.

*Oh and I'm not a libertarian either, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

[argeiphontes]

I think it is you who is living the utopian pipe dream that somehow markets and socialism are compatible.

Of course you do. It's your right to disagree.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I was making fun of you.

You accidentally blurted out the truth nonetheless. The bourgeoisie is defined, not by individual ownership (in fact most major economic entities are owned by shareholders), but by the social relation of private ownership, which market "socialism" preserves and even encourages. So yes, in a market "socialist" society, if such a thing was possible, everyone would be a capitalist. Of course, capitalism without a proletariat is impossible, and therefore market "socialism" is impossible.


Communists can demand anything they like. I demand market socialism.

Good for you. The point is that your demands have nothing to do with revolutionary communism - which is reflected in the organizations you sympathize with. IOPS is about as communist as the Democratic Party "socialists" like Sanders.


It has nothing to do with shareholding, as anyone familiar with the paradigm will know. There are no stocks or equities markets in market socialism.

Well, the theorists of market socialism with Vietnamese characteristics would certainly disagree with you. The point is that - no matter how you call the petty owners of your "socialist enterprises", shareholders, stakeholders, "free producers", subjects of the Carlist king of Spain, whatever - cooperatives are capitalist enterprises with a particular ownership structure. They are no more "revolutionary" than trusts or cartels - if anything, trusts and cartels at least represent the qualitatively highest form of capitalism.


That is your requirement for your ideal society. I have different goals.

This might shock you, but Marxists don't concern themselves with ideal societies. It would be ideal if the global society could immediately transition into an administrative economy - but it can't, so advocating such an immediate transition is reactionary. Marxists concern themselves with what is possible given the historic tendency of capitalism. Market "socialism" is not, no matter how desperately some people want to be petit-bourgeois.


Yes, the Mondragon cooperatives, the largest employers in the Basque region of Spain, are petty craftsmen. :laugh:

Yeah, let's ignore that Mondragon exists in the context of imperialist superexploitation of workers in the Third World, and is only able to function by superexploiting Latin American workers. Of course, if you think market "socialism" is possible, maybe market "socialism" in one country is also possible, and maybe the bourgeois-workers that would make up your little cooperatives will also participate in this superexploitation.


Nobody wants to abolish the market except magical-thinking communists who have no real alternatives to the market. The market socialist society is made of workers, and is democratic, so there is no one to defend against. Where are all these people trying to abolish the market now? Why doesn't capitalism need to defend itself against your marginal utopian dreams?

The communist alternative to the market is - and has always been unless you are the sort of communist who finds common cause with royalty or liberals - centrally-planned production for use. This is the program of communist parties, mass movements of people that capitalism is fighting against even today, in the wake of historic defeats of the working class.

Anyway, in this thread we have three supporters of capitalism. The first two, liberlict and baseball, are openly for the private ownership of the means of production and market mechanisms. They are openly anti-socialist. The third, Argus-slayer, pretends to be a socialist even though their economic dreams are substantially the same as Bush's "ownership society", or however the phrase went. I think I like the first two better - we will never see eye-to-eye unless we're looking at each other through a viewfinder, but we know where we stand, and we won't try to make ourselves appear as something we aren't.

[liberlict]

They are openly anti-socialist. The third, Argus-slayer, pretends to be a socialist even though their economic dreams are substantially the same as Bush's "ownership society", or however the phrase went.

Where's this Argus-slayer individual?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Where's this Argus-slayer individual?

Argus-slayer = argeiphontes.

[Baseball]

Fair enough. But then you can't just say "no" to everything I say. For example, if you don't think control of physical capital equals controls of the means of production, and that even market forces impinge on control of the means of production, then should supply a definition that will satisfy you and I can address it. Otherwise, we just disagree. That is perfectly fine, of course.


I said that in any rational economy, "control" of the means of production is going to be hands of the consumers-- that satisfying their needs and wants is how production is geared.

[argeiphontes]

The point is that your demands have nothing to do with revolutionary communism - which is reflected in the organizations you sympathize with. IOPS is about as communist as the Democratic Party "socialists" like Sanders.


I'm not a communist, so those organizations are perfect for me. I used to be a communist until I saw the light. :laugh: Now, my demands have nothing to do with revolutionary communism at all. I'm against it, in fact! :ohmy:



The communist alternative to the market is - and has always been unless you are the sort of communist who finds common cause with royalty or liberals - centrally-planned production for use. This is the program of communist parties, mass movements of people that capitalism is fighting against even today, in the wake of historic defeats of the working class.


Good for them, but "centrally-planned production for use" has never worked well in practice. There is no real alternative to the market. Not only that, but central planning implies central control, and as an anarchist I reject the idea of central control.



unless you are the sort of communist who finds common cause with royalty or liberals


I'm not any kind of communist. Communists are market fetishists like their right-libertarian counterparts.



Anyway, in this thread we have three supporters of capitalism. The first two, liberlict and baseball, are openly for the private ownership of the means of production and market mechanisms. They are openly anti-socialist. The third, Argus-slayer, pretends to be a socialist even though their economic dreams are substantially the same as Bush's "ownership society", or however the phrase went. I think I like the first two better - we will never see eye-to-eye unless we're looking at each other through a viewfinder, but we know where we stand, and we won't try to make ourselves appear as something we aren't.LOL good one. Bush's "ownership society" is Market Socialism. You'd better ask Bush about that one! ;) My interpretation of Market Socialism is based on Marx.



appear as something we aren't


I have nothing to hide. Markets FTW!!!!!1111!!1!1!!!!1

[argeiphontes]

Where's this Argus-slayer individual?

That's me. I want "Bush's ownership society". Haven't you heard? I've been advocating it since I got here.

[argeiphontes]

I said that in any rational economy, "control" of the means of production is going to be hands of the consumers-- that satisfying their needs and wants is how production is geared.

Well, they do get to vote with their dollars when they buy things. There is division of labor so I don't see how they could control the MoP directly in a modern society.

edit: I guess I would say, that a central planning alternative to the market is going to be either less efficient. A market gives constant feedback about consumer preferences, which is really all you can hope for in a society where people aren't making all their stuff themselves.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm not a communist, so those organizations are perfect for me. I used to be a communist until I saw the light. :laugh: Now, my demands have nothing to do with revolutionary communism at all. I'm against it, in fact! :ohmy:

I can't tell if you're serious or not - perhaps you have a very poor sense of humor, perhaps you're seconds away from going alt-QQ on us, who knows? - but either way, it is true that you are opposed to communism. So why do you post on RevLeft outside the OI section?


Good for them, but "centrally-planned production for use" has never worked well in practice.

Obviously it hasn't worked at all - at best, the Soviet Union and similar "really existing socialist" states had centrally-planned production for use by the state apparatus with market mechanisms. But even such economies systematically outperformed Western capitalism, particularly in periods when market mechanisms were restricted - the fifties, for example.


There is no real alternative to the market.

So we can assume you never actually read any Marxist theory beyond a few revisionist texts advocating market mechanisms. Even so, were all of the social formations that preceded capitalism and the global market illusions devisut by Satan, or what?


Not only that, but central planning implies central control, and as an anarchist I reject the idea of central control.

Perhaps you should read some Kropotkin and stop embarrassing yourself.


I'm not any kind of communist. Communists are market fetishists like their right-libertarian counterparts.

I don't usually use emoticons, but :rolleyes:.


LOL good one. Bush's "ownership society" is Market Socialism. You'd better ask Bush about that one!

I imagine the great populist would be uneasy about the dilution of stock ownership, but he would have a hard time denying that all of this - the name "socialist" aside, and the name is being used illegitimately in any case - is quite in line with the "ownership society". Everyone a stock owner!


My interpretation of Market Socialism is based on Marx.

Obviously you haven't read Marx, otherwise you would notice how he disparaged Ricardian "socialism", of which market "socialism" is a less appealing rehash, and what he had to say about the laws of motion in market economies.


Well, they do get to vote with their dollars when they buy things. There is division of labor so I don't see how they could control the MoP directly in a modern society.

edit: I guess I would say, that a central planning alternative to the market is going to be either less efficient. A market gives constant feedback about consumer preferences, which is really all you can hope for in a society where people aren't making all their stuff themselves.

Yes, "voting with your dollars" has a proven track record. Of not actually working.

[argeiphontes]

So why do you post on RevLeft outside the OI section?

Check the rules. Communists aren't the only people allowed. Mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah. :laugh:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Check the rules. Communists aren't the only people allowed. Mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah. :laugh:

Actually, the precedent is that market socialists, "liberal socialists", mutualists, "horizontalists" and so on are all restricted.

[argeiphontes]

Yes, "voting with your dollars" has a proven track record. Of not actually working.

That's completely false. Even Marx acknowledged Supply and Demand.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's completely false. Even Marx acknowledged Supply and Demand.

What Is It With The Random Capitalization Of Words? This Isn't German.

Anyway.

What works by Marx have you read?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

None. I refuse to acknowledge the man exists. I'm done with communism. He's dead to me now.

Then if you haven't actually read Marx, or a reliable summary - and/or are determined to be a big baby - don't make baseless claims about Marx and Marxism. For that matter, stop trying to turn this thread into e-drama.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I have too read Marx. I just posted about it in another thread.

What works by Marx have you read?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

It doesn't matter. Marx is dead to me now.

Then don't make claims that you refuse to back up, it's as simple as that. Obviously you know your "argument" doesn't have a leg to stand on, since, despite the numerous faults of this board, most people will not be convinced by Hayekian hand-waving. So you act like you're four.

[liberlict]

Can't you see that he was joking? :confused:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Can't you see that he was joking? :confused:

I assumed he was - although I really should stop assuming that people are joking when they say stupid things - but that doesn't let argeiphontes off the hook. He made claims about Marx and Marxism, so he should back them up. It's as simple as that.

[argeiphontes]

He made claims about Marx and Marxism, so he should back them up. It's as simple as that.

I claimed that Marx was dead to me. My restriction backs that up. :laugh:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I claimed that Marx was dead to me. My restriction backs that up. :laugh:

Quite frankly, no one cares if Marx is "dead to you", this isn't high school. I was talking about the post:


That's completely false. [That "voting with dollars" never works. - Cr. Het.] Even Marx acknowledged Supply and Demand.

[argeiphontes]

There's an excellent series of videos on Marxian economics at https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Ha ha ha.

You still haven't answered what works by Marx you had read, and just where you get your bizarre ideas about Marxism from (although, if your source proclaims itself to be "Marxian", that's prolly part of the problem), but I don't expect that you will. You would reveal too much of your ignorance if you did.

[argeiphontes]

Ha ha ha.

You still haven't answered what works by Marx you had read, and just where you get your bizarre ideas about Marxism from (although, if your source proclaims itself to be "Marxian", that's prolly part of the problem), but I don't expect that you will. You would reveal too much of your ignorance if you did.

Are you seriously going to go on about supply and demand in Marxian economics? Maybe you'll be so kind as to expound about how someone could explain capitalism without addressing market interactions? How do markets allocate if not by supply and demand, smartypants?

Oh, and questioning the credibility of Brendan McCooney will eventually make you look like a horse's ass. So keep going, I guess. While you're at it, throw Kliman and Freeman in for maximum embarrassment, since they've appeared at conferences together.

edit: I guess somebody has to take the n00bs to school. (https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/law-of-value-10-supply-and-demand-draft/)

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Are you seriously going to go on about supply and demand in Marxian economics? Maybe you'll be so kind as to expound about how someone could explain capitalism without addressing market interactions? How do markets allocate if not by supply and demand, smartypants?

Oh, and questioning the credibility of Brendan McCooney will eventually make you look like a horse's ass. So keep going, I guess. While you're at it, throw Kliman and Freeman in for maximum embarrassment, since they've appeared at conferences together.

edit: I guess somebody has to take the n00bs to school. (https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/law-of-value-10-supply-and-demand-draft/)

I question the credibility of anyone whose blog links to the Platypus outfit of pseudo-Trotskyist cheerleaders for imperialism and racism. For that matter, I question the credibility of anyone who refers to Marx as a classical economist. This is, I think, the most common error people make when interpreting Marx; they treat him as a Ricardian.

Anyway, the text you link to contains an interesting statement. Namely:

"Marx has a more subtle approach, one that embraces these fluctuations. Firstly, since for Marx price and value diverge all of the time, his theory isn’t disturbed by these fluctuations. In fact the fluctuation of price above and below value is the mechanism by which the law of value works. When prices rise above values this attracts investment, reapportioning labor to new sectors. When price falls below value labor must be withdrawn from that sector. But unlike bourgeois theory which treats changes in demand as the dominant force in these fluctuations, Marx stresses changes in technology caused by competition to produce under the socially necessary labor time."

In other words, the bourgeois "law of supply and demand" is no more true than the Lassalean "iron law of wages".

Generally, the problem with your interpretation of Marx is that you assume that, in Marxist theory, capitalists strive to maximize the volume of profit - which would lead to a "law of supply and demand" or something similar. In fact, Marx shows they strive to maximize the rate of profit. Furthermore, the inelasticity of capitalist production to economic demand, leading to overproduction, is pretty much the point of the later chapters of Capital. If you have read these later chapters - and not just skimmed over the first part of Capital looking for some moral criticism of capitalism and some people do - you must have read them very carelessly.

Of course, given that the "socialist" owners of the "socialist" enterprises you envision would also strive to maximize the rate of their undoubtedly "socialist" profit, leading to overproduction crises, this conclusion is unpalatable to you. But there you have it.

[liberlict]

I question the credibility of anyone whose blog links to the Platypus outfit of pseudo-Trotskyist cheerleaders for imperialism and racism. For that matter, I question the credibility of anyone who refers to Marx as a classical economist. This is, I think, the most common error people make when interpreting Marx; they treat him as a Ricardian.

Anyway, the text you link to contains an interesting statement. Namely:

"Marx has a more subtle approach, one that embraces these fluctuations. Firstly, since for Marx price and value diverge all of the time, his theory isn’t disturbed by these fluctuations. In fact the fluctuation of price above and below value is the mechanism by which the law of value works. When prices rise above values this attracts investment, reapportioning labor to new sectors. When price falls below value labor must be withdrawn from that sector. But unlike bourgeois theory which treats changes in demand as the dominant force in these fluctuations, Marx stresses changes in technology caused by competition to produce under the socially necessary labor time."

In other words, the bourgeois "law of supply and demand" is no more true than the Lassalean "iron law of wages".

Generally, the problem with your interpretation of Marx is that you assume that, in Marxist theory, capitalists strive to maximize the volume of profit - which would lead to a "law of supply and demand" or something similar. In fact, Marx shows they strive to maximize the rate of profit. Furthermore, the inelasticity of capitalist production to economic demand, leading to overproduction, is pretty much the point of the later chapters of Capital. If you have read these later chapters - and not just skimmed over the first part of Capital looking for some moral criticism of capitalism and some people do - you must have read them very carelessly.

Of course, given that the "socialist" owners of the "socialist" enterprises you envision would also strive to maximize the rate of their undoubtedly "socialist" profit, leading to overproduction crises, this conclusion is unpalatable to you. But there you have it.


Er, Marx was a Ricardian. All of Das Kapital is irrelevant if you don't accept the LTV.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Er, Marx was a Ricardian. All of Das Kapital is irrelevant if you don't accept the LTV.

Probably, but being Ricardian isn't simply a matter of having a labor theory of value - Barbone held a version of the LTV and wasn't a Ricardian. The point is that Marx had a theory of the market, economic crises etc. that was pretty explicitly not Ricardian, and in fact he savaged the so-called "Ricardian socialists" who tried to base socialism on the LTV alone (plus some piety).

[liberlict]

Probably, but being Ricardian isn't simply a matter of having a labor theory of value - Barbone held a version of the LTV and wasn't a Ricardian. The point is that Marx had a theory of the market, economic crises etc. that was pretty explicitly not Ricardian, and in fact he savaged the so-called "Ricardian socialists" who tried to base socialism on the LTV alone (plus some piety).

Ricardo didn't have a crises theory, he didn't need one, because he didn't think that capitalism was an exploitative system.

Marx obviously introduced some original concepts (surplus value etc.), but the whole thing is built on the Ricardian foundations. If Ricardo was wrong, Marx was wrong. It's as simple as that.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Ricardo didn't have a crises theory, he didn't need one, because he didn't think that capitalism was an exploitative system.

Keynes didn't think that capitalism was an exploitative system, either, but he presented a theory - a wrong theory, as the current crisis shows, but a theory nonetheless - of economic crises. These crises are pretty much an empirical fact; any theory that can't account for them is useless.

Furthermore, the fact of exploitation is not the centerpiece of Marx's later critique of capitalism - Marxism as an economic theory can't be reduced to the observation that the proletariat is exploited.


Marx obviously introduced some original concepts (surplus value etc.), but the whole thing is built on the Ricardian foundations. If Ricardo was wrong, Marx was wrong. It's as simple as that.

Obviously that can't be the case, since Ricardo thought capitalism worked - and Marx did not. Marxism is based on the labor theory of value, but that doesn't mean Marx accepted Ricardo's account of the market, rent etc. etc.

[liberlict]

It's only called 'crisis theory' in Marxian economics. Everybody else just calls it 'cycle' or 'business cycle' or 'business cycle theory', and Marx was not the first to notice business cycles. His contribution is that these 'crises' are fatal to the capitalist mode of production. Which again goes back to the difference between price and value.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

It's only called 'crisis theory' in Marxian economics. Everybody else just calls it 'cycle' or 'business cycle' or 'business cycle theory', and Marx was not the first to notice business cycles.

Crises are similar to business cycles - but they are not the same. In any case, even if you think the two are identical, Ricardo had no theory of the business cycle either.

The point is that the main similarity between Marx and Ricardo is the LTV, and the Marxist labor theory of value is not identical to the Ricardian one (again, compare the two theorists on rent for example).


His contribution is that these 'crises' are fatal to the capitalist mode of production.

In the long term, yes. But what was it that lord Keynes said about the long term?

[liberlict]

I don't think Keynes said anything about the long term. Did he?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I don't think Keynes said anything about the long term. Did he?

"In the long term, we are all dead." The point is that capitalism has at its disposal a number of ways of resolving a crisis, each of them against the interest of the proletariat. Eventually it won't be able to keep up - but the thing is, a collapse of capitalism won't necessarily lead into socialism. Without a conscious proletariat, the first part of the dilemma "socialism or barbarism" becomes irrelevant.

[liberlict]

I subscribe to the Austrian theory of business cycles, which means I think we could avoid them by stopping inflating the money supply.

[argeiphontes]

"In the long term, we are all dead."

Thank you, Jesus!

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I subscribe to the Austrian theory of business cycles, which means I think we could avoid them by stopping inflating the money supply.

Alright, but that's besides the point at the moment. The point is that Marx was not a Ricardian - and in fact treating Marx as a Ricardian (particularly falling into the trap of "Ricardian socialism") leads to revisionism, market-fetishism etc.


Thank you, Jesus!

If we extrapolate the current trend, you'll find a way to break all laws of materialism and continue to make irrelevant replies after death.

[liberlict]

Alright, but that's besides the point at the moment. The point is that Marx was not a Ricardian - and in fact treating Marx as a Ricardian (particularly falling into the trap of "Ricardian socialism") leads to revisionism, market-fetishism etc.

I guess it depends on how you define 'Ricardian.' Marx certainly take's LTV in a very different and original direction. I'll concede that if it makes you happy?

[argeiphontes]

If we extrapolate the current trend, you'll find a way to break all laws of materialism and continue to make irrelevant replies after death.

There's only one superior being when it comes to irrelevancy on this board, and it's not me. It's like you swallowed a book about illogical arguments. It's all deflecting attention, nonsequiturs, appeals to various authorities. But mostly deflection. Like it matters that Marx wrote a letter about Russia when in the letter he's talking about America and the West? Or how you wiggled out of that (perfectly valid) academic snobbery accusation? Studying at Harvard, are we?

You should be a high school debate coach or something.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I guess it depends on how you define 'Ricardian.' Marx certainly take's LTV in a very different and original direction. I'll concede that if it makes you happy?

Well - Marx could only be called a "Ricardian" if you consider anyone who espouses a labor theory of value to be a Ricardian - but Nicholas Barbon, writing nearly a century before Ricardo, advanced an LTV, so that's a very awkward usage.

The point is that this is one of the most common misinterpretations of Marx - in fact our friend argeiphontes seems to believe it


There's only one superior being when it comes to irrelevancy on this board, and it's not me. It's like you swallowed a book about illogical arguments. It's all deflecting attention, nonsequiturs, appeals to various authorities. But mostly deflection. Like it matters that Marx wrote a letter about Russia when in the letter he's talking about America and the West. Or how you wiggled out of that academic snobbery accusation?

You should be a high school debate coach or something.

Your accusations might be a bit more plausible if you haven't spent the last three or four posts vigorously avoiding replying to my points.

[argeiphontes]

Your accusations might be a bit more plausible if you haven't spent the last three or four posts vigorously avoiding replying to my points.

"Assert the opposite". Nice try. Can I get a link to where you get these techniques?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

"Assert the opposite". Nice try. Can I get a link to where you get these techniques?

Good grief, is this tedious. Did you, or did you not, read the later chapters of Capital, or at least a reliable summary? Do you have an understanding of overproduction and how it leads to crises?

[liberlict]

Well - Marx could only be called a "Ricardian" if you consider anyone who espouses a labor theory of value to be a Ricardian - but Nicholas Barbon, writing nearly a century before Ricardo, advanced an LTV, so that's a very awkward usage.

The point is that this is one of the most common misinterpretations of Marx - in fact our friend argeiphontes seems to believe it



Your accusations might be a bit more plausible if you haven't spent the last three or four posts vigorously avoiding replying to my points.

It goes back to Thomas Aquinas, or perhaps even Aristotle, if you want to trace it germane levels. Ricardo was the one who put it into its systematic form, accepted by Marx, which says that labor explains not just wages but the actual value of products in general. So no, it's not awkward usage at all.

But whatever, I don't think it's an issue to argue all night about.

[argeiphontes]

Good grief, is this tedious. Did you, or did you not, read the later chapters of Capital, or at least a reliable summary? Do you have an understanding of overproduction and how it leads to crises?

Yes. I used to have a canned spiel about the current crisis and the declining rate of profit, you just missed it because you weren't around. Someone even made fun of me for it on #marxism.

I don't really know anything about Ricardo though, so I can't say anything about him and Marx. The only reason I like Marxian econ might be because it's the only one I know something about. ;)

Anyway, good night, I have to take a nap so I can do something today/tomorrow.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Yes. I used to have a canned spiel about the current crisis and the declining rate of profit, you just missed it because you weren't around. Someone even made fun of me for it on #marxism.

I don't understand how you can state that Marx "recognized the law of supply and demand", then, particularly when the inelasticity of supply is one of the main points.

[argeiphontes]

I don't understand how you can state that Marx "recognized the law of supply and demand", then, particularly when the inelasticity of supply is one of the main points.

I'm not sure that supply and demand have to do with crises of overproduction. Supply and demand determine prices in markets. This doesn't imply that markets can't suffer from a lack of effective demand (a consequence of increasing organic composition of capital, i.e. capital deepening).

[Schumpeter]

I don't understand how you can state that Marx "recognized the law of supply and demand", then, particularly when the inelasticity of supply is one of the main points.

Marx recognized but he didn't care if the markets in which his theoretical economy did not produce theoretical utility maximization as he had different objectives due to his philosophical stance.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'm not sure that supply and demand have to do with crises of overproduction. Supply and demand determine prices in markets. This doesn't imply that markets can't suffer from a lack of effective demand (a consequence of increasing organic composition of capital, i.e. capital deepening).

That is one meaning of "supply and demand" - one that is at variance with the Marxist assumption that prices fluctuate around the exchange value, not the supply-demand equilibrium - but most bourgeois economists also assume that supply is a monotonic function of demand, which would make overproduction impossible (of course, when pressed every bourgeois economist will admit the supply-demand curves only hold for cases of perfect competition, something that has yet to happen on this sinful planet).


Marx recognized but he didn't care if the markets in which his theoretical economy did not produce theoretical utility maximization as he had different objectives due to his philosophical stance.

Which is good, since "utility maximization" is nonsense.

[argeiphontes]

That is one meaning of "supply and demand" - one that is at variance with the Marxist assumption that prices fluctuate around the exchange value, not the supply-demand equilibrium - but most bourgeois economists also assume that supply is a monotonic function of demand, which would make overproduction impossible (of course, when pressed every bourgeois economist will admit the supply-demand curves only hold for cases of perfect competition, something that has yet to happen on this sinful planet).

Whatever, dude...

[Ares1214]

That is one meaning of "supply and demand" - one that is at variance with the Marxist assumption that prices fluctuate around the exchange value, not the supply-demand equilibrium - but most bourgeois economists also assume that supply is a monotonic function of demand, which would make overproduction impossible (of course, when pressed every bourgeois economist will admit the supply-demand curves only hold for cases of perfect competition, something that has yet to happen on this sinful planet).



Which is good, since "utility maximization" is nonsense.

Why is utility maximization nonsense? I always see that claimed as fact and yet nobody actually goes on to explain why it is nonsense.

[Schumpeter]

Why is utility maximization nonsense? I always see that claimed as fact and yet nobody actually goes on to explain why it is nonsense.

Basically, the reason why we make good and services it to make people happy right? As it fulfils their wants+needs.

So lets give an example of a coffee shop, you walk into the shop and buy a coffee, so why did you buy it? Because you thought that it would make you happy, if you were correct and I'd assume with something as trival as coffee you would be, you 'profit' off the purchase of the good and are happier as a result (you wouldn't spend more money than you would value that happiness derived from the consumption of that good)

Utility loosely refers to happiness (see utilitarianism) , so happiness maximization occurs at where the quantity of the product supplied is in equilibrium with the demand (want) for that product.

[Ares1214]

Basically, the reason why we make good and services it to make people happy right? As it fulfils their wants+needs.

So lets give an example of a coffee shop, you walk into the shop and buy a coffee, so why did you buy it? Because you thought that it would make you happy, if you were correct and I'd assume with something as trival as coffee you would be, you 'profit' off the purchase of the good and are happier as a result (you wouldn't spend more money than you would value that happiness derived from the consumption of that good)

Utility loosely refers to happiness (see utilitarianism) , so happiness maximization occurs at where the quantity of the product supplied is in equilibrium with the demand (want) for that product.

I know what it is, I want to know why every communist claims it is nonsense, and why is it important for it to be nonsense to communists?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Why is utility maximization nonsense? I always see that claimed as fact and yet nobody actually goes on to explain why it is nonsense.

I'm in a hurry so I will have to answer very briefly - utility is ideological (i.e. whether something is seen as contributing to overall utility depends on ideological assumptions), utility is not quantifiable, and "utility maximization" generally leads to absurd outcomes (the "repugnant conclusion", killing off unhappy people etc. - utilitarianism generally tends to go off the rails). And finally, what do we care about the utility of the bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie etc.? Let them rot, they're not our department.

[liberlict]

Why is utility maximization nonsense? I always see that claimed as fact and yet nobody actually goes on to explain why it is nonsense.

I think it's because utility maximization is only relevant in a capitalist mode of production. In a socialized MOP people wouldn't want to capitalize on their assets because the focus would be on public good rather than every man for himself.