3 ms·
The only parallel is that Marx also reasoned with a simplified, “armchair-economist” understanding that failed to account for credit, innovation, competition, r
by the_optimist 3y ago
The only parallel is that Marx also reasoned with a simplified, “armchair-economist” understanding that failed to account for credit, innovation, competition, risk, and return, among other things. Each of these are fundamentally critical aspects of the real economy, far better understood and articulated since his work. In modern times, we recognize Marxist principles are primarily designed to create disruptive but centralized authoritarian systems.
- dingosity 3y agoUm. Are you suggesting that denizens of internet comments forums are somehow not armchair economists?
- thiagoharry 3y agoMarx's Das Kapital third volume is about the effect of credit and competition in a capitalist economy. Innovation and why it develops so much more in capitalist economies than in previous systems was something considered already in the first volume, like risk and return and how these are not the things that justify the capitalist profit. Marx also wrote very little about creating any system, only pointed general tendencies as part of his dialectics. Marx work is the culmination of classical economy, so much that is very hard to find a third option besides either abandon the core classical economy principles or becoming at least partially Marxist. While one could always disagree with the tenets of classical economy, and nowadays the great majority of economists are from other schools of thought, most attacks against Marx reverberated over the Internet are very unjust, originally formulated more based on political bias than on a real understanding; and then, they are inadvertently repeated by the dynamics of the Internet.