5 ms·

All I know is that Marxism is a sophomoric and demagogic economic ideology that incites violence and promotes ruinous economic policies. >>Please point to anyw

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
    You have not yet shown that you understand the difference between Marxism as a political ideology vs. Marx's influences on other fields, including economics. In case, I mentioned Marxian economics because you somehow erroneously proposed that "the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics". Whatever influence there is started at least a century ago. This isn't something new. I "deflected" the question? You asked "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'm not answering that question because that's not the end-all and be-all of Marxian economics, and I never proposed or defended Marx's value theory. Since your question was ill-posed, I answered the question you should have asked, which is "How can you say that Marxian economics is useful", and the answer is that I can point to places where Marxian economics has become part of orthodox economics. Tell me, are you also one of those people who argues against evolution by pointing to problems in the writings of Darwinism? Or against modern psychology by pointing to the cuckoo theories of Freud? Since that's the logical fallacy you keep repeating by equating Marxian economics with Marxism. You still haven't described why your argument that union actions are only based on rent-seeking is true. It's seems, based on your other HN comments, that "rent seeking" is a magic phrase you use to complain about things you don't like. You suggested I read the Wikipedia on "Rent-seeking", so surely you must have read it as well, and in doing so you must have come across the comment: "Critics of the concept point out that, in practice, there may be difficulties distinguishing between beneficial profit-seeking and detrimental rent-seeking." This brings the conversation back to a question you still haven't answered. I asked "Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions?" I want to see you actually explain it, because I don't think you understand the details. My review of the literature shows that there have many many attempts to establish this, but it's difficult to show that the models are actually true in real life. For one, if it were true rent seeking then we would expect unions to be most effective in prosperous companies, which have more rent to seek. Instead, they are more likely to form in companies Moreover, there are economics models (like in Agell 2001) which result in unions even if there is no rent seeking. Agell considers unions as a form of "social insurance of otherwise uninsurable risks". Nor have you justified your assertion that unions only exist because of government laws protecting them, and because of a union threat of violence, and how they would not exist in a free market. You continue to make this assertion even when I gave a specific counter-example. Reality does not seem to fit your worldview. You said that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil". When I asked for clarification, you pointed to "The line where you mention Americans." I have reviewed the entire thread and can find no place where I mention Americans. Please quote it for me as I am unable to find it. I did write: ... the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. I also explained what I meant, that is, it is used to attack even non-Marxist socialist ideas and concepts by associating them with the Marxist political concepts that contributed to the atrocities under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. I believe that is also the way you are using the term, and I believe that it's part of a decades-long propaganda effort which started in the 1930s as part of the effort to tear down the New Deal - an effort which is still ongoing, and part of the reason why the Koch brothers fund so many libertarian organizations. (For a more historical precursor, another example is Joseph Coors.) I may be wrong, but this is hardly the same as "criticizing Americans for seeing Marxism as evil." Just like my observation that culture has been moving left-ward over the century such that mainstream academic beliefs in scientific racism are now no longer held IS NOT AT ALL the same as "accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of scientific racism". The reason you are unable to quote me is because I never said what you think I'm saying.

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
  You have not yet shown that you understand the difference between Marxism as a political ideology vs. Marx's influences on other fields, including economics. In case, I mentioned Marxian economics because you somehow erroneously proposed that "the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics". Whatever influence there is started at least a century ago. This isn't something new. I "deflected" the question? You asked "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'm not answering that question because that's not the end-all and be-all of Marxian economics, and I never proposed or defended Marx's value theory. Since your question was ill-posed, I answered the question you should have asked, which is "How can you say that Marxian economics is useful", and the answer is that I can point to places where Marxian economics has become part of orthodox economics. Tell me, are you also one of those people who argues against evolution by pointing to problems in the writings of Darwinism? Or against modern psychology by pointing to the cuckoo theories of Freud? Since that's the logical fallacy you keep repeating by equating Marxian economics with Marxism. You still haven't described why your argument that union actions are only based on rent-seeking is true. It's seems, based on your other HN comments, that "rent seeking" is a magic phrase you use to complain about things you don't like. You suggested I read the Wikipedia on "Rent-seeking", so surely you must have read it as well, and in doing so you must have come across the comment: "Critics of the concept point out that, in practice, there may be difficulties distinguishing between beneficial profit-seeking and detrimental rent-seeking." This brings the conversation back to a question you still haven't answered. I asked "Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions?" I want to see you actually explain it, because I don't think you understand the details. My review of the literature shows that there have many many attempts to establish this, but it's difficult to show that the models are actually true in real life. For one, if it were true rent seeking then we would expect unions to be most effective in prosperous companies, which have more rent to seek. Instead, they are more likely to form in companies Moreover, there are economics models (like in Agell 2001) which result in unions even if there is no rent seeking. Agell considers unions as a form of "social insurance of otherwise uninsurable risks". Nor have you justified your assertion that unions only exist because of government laws protecting them, and because of a union threat of violence, and how they would not exist in a free market. You continue to make this assertion even when I gave a specific counter-example. Reality does not seem to fit your worldview. You said that I "criticized Americans for seeing Marxism as evil". When I asked for clarification, you pointed to "The line where you mention Americans." I have reviewed the entire thread and can find no place where I mention Americans. Please quote it for me as I am unable to find it. I did write: ... the phrase "promoting Marxism", which in the US is tainted by decades of deliberate negative propaganda. I also explained what I meant, that is, it is used to attack even non-Marxist socialist ideas and concepts by associating them with the Marxist political concepts that contributed to the atrocities under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. I believe that is also the way you are using the term, and I believe that it's part of a decades-long propaganda effort which started in the 1930s as part of the effort to tear down the New Deal - an effort which is still ongoing, and part of the reason why the Koch brothers fund so many libertarian organizations. (For a more historical precursor, another example is Joseph Coors.) I may be wrong, but this is hardly the same as "criticizing Americans for seeing Marxism as evil." Just like my observation that culture has been moving left-ward over the century such that mainstream academic beliefs in scientific racism are now no longer held IS NOT AT ALL the same as "accusing opponents of Marxism of being proponents of scientific racism". The reason you are unable to quote me is because I never said what you think I'm saying.