4 ms·

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 to

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.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Like I said, if you want to debate, post in an appropriate forum like Reddit and link to it. I can resume this with you there. Long political debates are not appropriate for this forum.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I find nothing wrong with this venue. No one is reading this thread any more so it's not like it's even bothering anyone else. Yet another way to shut down debate is to force a venue change. Which is what you are doing. It would have been a lot shorter had you not confused the political and specific economic theories of Marx with Marxian economics and with what I was saying. It would have been a lot shorter if you had read my reference to Commonwealth v. Hunt and realized the historical evidence didn't fit into your economic model. And I don't see this as a "debate", because debates are such an awful way to resolve differences. They are more often grandstanding venues to try to convince observers of the veracity of one's viewpoint. There is no one else here. We have instead been having a discussion.

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.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Like I said, if you want to debate, post in an appropriate forum like Reddit and link to it. I can resume this with you there. Long political debates are not appropriate for this forum.
- eesmith 9y ago
  I find nothing wrong with this venue. No one is reading this thread any more so it's not like it's even bothering anyone else. Yet another way to shut down debate is to force a venue change. Which is what you are doing. It would have been a lot shorter had you not confused the political and specific economic theories of Marx with Marxian economics and with what I was saying. It would have been a lot shorter if you had read my reference to Commonwealth v. Hunt and realized the historical evidence didn't fit into your economic model. And I don't see this as a "debate", because debates are such an awful way to resolve differences. They are more often grandstanding venues to try to convince observers of the veracity of one's viewpoint. There is no one else here. We have instead been having a discussion.