5 ms·

>>which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. Marxist doctrine is sophomoric demagoguery, wrapped in pseudo-economic quackery, to

>>which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. Marxist doctrine is sophomoric demagoguery, wrapped in pseudo-economic quackery, to rationalize totalitarianism. Every society where it has been put into practice has seen itself descend into hellish tyranny. It has led to governments killing tens of millions, and effectively enslaving hundreds of millions more. In more moderate doses, it has led to wage stagnation, the erosion of the manufacturing sector, and the breakdown of the two-parent family. It has created large monopolistic social welfare bureaucracies with rent-seeking stakeholders who are incentivized to promote an ideological narrative to justify their rent-seeking livelihoods. Anyway, while I don't feel particularly inclined to debate with someone who believes in an ideology every bit as damnable as fascism, and who resorts to mendacious defamation like accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of "scientific racism", I feel a moral responsibility to keep the dialogue going. However this isn't the best forum for it. Please create a post in Reddit or a similarly appropriate forum, provide me with the link, and we can resume this there.

eesmith 9y ago
Right, so you - unlike economists - don't distinguish between Marxist doctrine and Marxian economics. I even pointed quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics to show the distinction. But all you did was react to the word "Marx" as if I were a supporter of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. Because I don't. I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. As a reminder, South Africa banned the Communist Party because it was integrated. That part of leftist ideology is now mainstream, which is another example that just because something is part of leftist ideology - and Communist to boost - doesn't mean it's wrong.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  All I know is that Marxism is a sophomoric and demagogic economic ideology that incites violence and promotes ruinous economic policies. >>Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil. >>I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. But it's not.. How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?
  - eesmith 9y ago
    If that's what you know about Marxian economics then you know so little about economics that it's no wonder that you think these are somehow new ideas. You wrote "You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil." Please quote whatever it is you think where I said that. Because you are seriously misreading what I wrote. Instead, you appear to be viewing everything through libertarian glasses, and rejecting any evidence counter to your beliefs. I never talked about Marxism as a political doctrine. Quoting again from the Wikipedia page for Marxian economics (emphasis mine): > Marxian economics, particularly in academia, is distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology as well as the normative aspects of Marxist thought, with the view that Marx's original approach to understanding economics and economic development is intellectually independent from Marx's own advocacy of revolutionary socialism.[2][3] Marxian economists do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists, but draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.[4] You write that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil.". I did not. This is another example of you seeing things which aren't there. I wrote: It's interesting that you use the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. The term "promoting Marxism" in the US is used as a slur against any idea which is, broadly speaking, "socialist", not just the revolutionary socialism of Marx. For example, if you promote single-payer health care in the US, you might be tarred with the brush "promoting Marxism", even though socialized medicine in every other industrialized country is not seen as being part of Marxism. You wrote: "How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?" I again quote from the Wikipedia page on Marxian economics (emphasis mine): > Although the Marxian school is considered heterodox, ideas that have come out of Marxian economics have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy; certain concepts of Marxian economics, especially those related to capital accumulation and the business cycle, such as creative destruction, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems. Why don't you ask mainstream economists why they found Marxian economics to be useful? Since it's one of the "most impartial academic fields" according to you, that must mean that some parts of Marxian economics are useful.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      If you don't understand that Marxism is quack economics that leads to ruin anywhere its model for reality is taken seriously, then you are either emotionally too attached to an ideology, or have an ulterior motive not aligned with the interests of society. Marx's characterization of profit as theft against the worker is economic quackery, and clearly forwarded for political purposes, to create a moral rationalization for redistributive revolution and centralization of economic forces. >>Please quote whatever it is you think where I said that. The line where you mention Americans. >>I again quote from the Wikipedia page on Marxian economics (emphasis mine): You're quoting from Wikipedia without answering the question. My question is an extremely important one, with implications for the basic viability of the Marxism model of economics, and for its potential impact on society, and yet basically deflected it. >>Why don't you ask mainstream economists why they found Marxian economics to be useful? Mainstream economists do not consider Marxism a serious school of economic thought. Undoubtedly among the tens of thousands of trained economists, you can find a small number of outliers who have extracted some conceptual tools from the Marxist toolkit, but by and large, Marxism is seen as something approaching pseudo-science.

eesmith 9y ago

Right, so you - unlike economists - don't distinguish between Marxist doctrine and Marxian economics. I even pointed quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics to show the distinction. But all you did was react to the word "Marx" as if I were a supporter of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. Because I don't. I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. As a reminder, South Africa banned the Communist Party because it was integrated. That part of leftist ideology is now mainstream, which is another example that just because something is part of leftist ideology - and Communist to boost - doesn't mean it's wrong.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
All I know is that Marxism is a sophomoric and demagogic economic ideology that incites violence and promotes ruinous economic policies. >>Please point to anywhere where I said that I support Marxist doctrine. You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil. >>I do think that Marxian economics is a useful way to understand economics. But it's not.. How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?
- eesmith 9y ago
  If that's what you know about Marxian economics then you know so little about economics that it's no wonder that you think these are somehow new ideas. You wrote "You criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil." Please quote whatever it is you think where I said that. Because you are seriously misreading what I wrote. Instead, you appear to be viewing everything through libertarian glasses, and rejecting any evidence counter to your beliefs. I never talked about Marxism as a political doctrine. Quoting again from the Wikipedia page for Marxian economics (emphasis mine): > Marxian economics, particularly in academia, is distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology as well as the normative aspects of Marxist thought, with the view that Marx's original approach to understanding economics and economic development is intellectually independent from Marx's own advocacy of revolutionary socialism.[2][3] Marxian economists do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists, but draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.[4] You write that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil.". I did not. This is another example of you seeing things which aren't there. I wrote: It's interesting that you use the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. The term "promoting Marxism" in the US is used as a slur against any idea which is, broadly speaking, "socialist", not just the revolutionary socialism of Marx. For example, if you promote single-payer health care in the US, you might be tarred with the brush "promoting Marxism", even though socialized medicine in every other industrialized country is not seen as being part of Marxism. You wrote: "How could you say that a model that considers the value of an employee's labor to be equal to their wage plus profit is useful?" I again quote from the Wikipedia page on Marxian economics (emphasis mine): > Although the Marxian school is considered heterodox, ideas that have come out of Marxian economics have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy; certain concepts of Marxian economics, especially those related to capital accumulation and the business cycle, such as creative destruction, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems. Why don't you ask mainstream economists why they found Marxian economics to be useful? Since it's one of the "most impartial academic fields" according to you, that must mean that some parts of Marxian economics are useful.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    If you don't understand that Marxism is quack economics that leads to ruin anywhere its model for reality is taken seriously, then you are either emotionally too attached to an ideology, or have an ulterior motive not aligned with the interests of society. Marx's characterization of profit as theft against the worker is economic quackery, and clearly forwarded for political purposes, to create a moral rationalization for redistributive revolution and centralization of economic forces. >>Please quote whatever it is you think where I said that. The line where you mention Americans. >>I again quote from the Wikipedia page on Marxian economics (emphasis mine): You're quoting from Wikipedia without answering the question. My question is an extremely important one, with implications for the basic viability of the Marxism model of economics, and for its potential impact on society, and yet basically deflected it. >>Why don't you ask mainstream economists why they found Marxian economics to be useful? Mainstream economists do not consider Marxism a serious school of economic thought. Undoubtedly among the tens of thousands of trained economists, you can find a small number of outliers who have extracted some conceptual tools from the Marxist toolkit, but by and large, Marxism is seen as something approaching pseudo-science.