4 ms·

Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of int

Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astrologers.

exit 16y ago
> Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astronomers. what about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?
- MarkPNeyer 16y ago
  nice catch
forkandwait 16y ago
"Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all 2000 or so pages to be able to say this? The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher. One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now). When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)
- MaysonL 16y ago
  Peter Drucker thought Marx was important, not for his answers, but because he was asking the right important questions.
loewenskind 16y ago
That's a pretty bold statement. How do you know for certain that the labor theory of value is flawed? Has it every actually been seriously tried? Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one. You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.

exit 16y ago

> Marx was completely wrong because he based his entire ideology on a flawed axiom - the labor theory of value - and should be treated with the same level of intellectual respect as phrenologists and astronomers. what about people who confuse astrology and astronomy?

MarkPNeyer 16y ago
nice catch

forkandwait 16y ago

"Marx was completely wrong" is quite a statement -- you must have read all 2000 or so pages to be able to say this? The labor theory of value is, indeed, rather silly. Marx did say a lot of other stuff, however. He was a crappy economist, but a great (IMHO) sociologist and philosopher. One of his many points was that (market and non market) economies are socially embedded and created, generally to support power grabs by certain classes. Market economies have the extra advantage that they allow class structure (the relation between groups of people who are powerful and groups who are screwed-over) to appear scientifically necessary, as inevitable as the orbit of the planets once we know the differential equations and the initial conditions. But really, the economies mask a power struggle that was out in the open during feudal times (e.g. when the Norman lord showed up and said you will farm for us and give up your weapons, or we will kill you now). When a person can't see this social context for markets, Marx would say such a person was blinded by "commodity fetishism" and a misguided belief in powers of commodity relations (and that such a belief is no more rational than the belief that a blessed doll can inflict misery on your enemies.)

MaysonL 16y ago
Peter Drucker thought Marx was important, not for his answers, but because he was asking the right important questions.

loewenskind 16y ago

That's a pretty bold statement. How do you know for certain that the labor theory of value is flawed? Has it every actually been seriously tried? Further, you're implicitly saying that the "free market" view is the correct one. How can you possibly know this? Because it manages to work? Of course it does! Any programmer should know that when you're livelihood depends on it you can make any old garbage hang together long enough to get your next meal. I'm not saying "free market" hypothesis are "any old garbage", but rather that something simply not catastrophically failing doesn't mean it's the best answer or even a good one. You hold pretty strong beliefs for something that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.