5
6

SilverThe [Silver Discussion] Sticky. Come shoot the shit and discuss the bad economics. - 24 May 2016 (self.badeconomics)

AutoModerator[M] が 投稿

並べ替え:
新着 (提案されたアイデア)
ベストトップ論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]WorldOfthisLordWe can change our flair now, right? 0ポイント1ポイント  (56子コメント)

Here's a post from Chris Dillow at Stumbling and Mumbling on bad arguments against Marxism that might be of interest.

[–]roboczarcan't get no satisficing 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That bit about LTV is utter bullshit. Marx made a mistake when interpreting Ricardo, and Marxist economists won't let it go and admit that a mistake was made. Their best attempt so far (temporal single system interpretation) relies on the fact that Marx was infallible and utterly correct in making this mistake. It's farcical.

Sraffa's criticism of the LTV is a critical piece of reading, to understand where Marx went wrong.

[–]MyShitsFuckedDown3Uphold Marxism-Thomaism 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think there's some annoying elements of the post. But overall a good basic confrontation of some common arguments. A better one is this imo but whatever

[–]DrSandbagsSurgically-Augmented Dickey-Fuller 9ポイント10ポイント  (53子コメント)

I'm not a Marxist or any believer in socialism, but many defenders of markets and capitalism would be much better off if they stopped viewing Marx as an evil man responsible for 100 million deaths and more as a sociologist who had some good theories and some bad theories who left behind a school of thought that is continually evolving. You don't have to subscribe to something like the LTV, but at least admit that there's a significant amount of nuance.

edit: we've been zapped by BSS

[–]wumbotarianfenance 4ポイント5ポイント  (52子コメント)

who had some good theories and some bad theories who left behind a school of thought that is continually evolving.

That's a rosy way of saying "Marx left behind a school of thought that was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths - but that school of thought is ever changing!"

[–]besttrousers 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

responsible

How do you know?

I think it is at least plausible that, if I went back in time and messily killed Marx in the British Library before he finished Das Kapital, Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc. would have found another ideology to justify their regimes. It's not as if the Spanish Inquisition or the French Revolution needed Marx to terrorize their citizens.

Maybe Marx was just the opiate of the masses.

[–]wumbotarianfenance 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

How do you know?

Well Mao and Maoists did kill millions. That happened.

I think it is at least plausible that, if I went back in time and messily killed Marx in the British Library before he finished Das Kapital, Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc. would have found another ideology to justify their regimes. It's not as if the Spanish Inquisition or the French Revolution needed Marx to terrorize their citizens.

Sure, sure - in a counterfactual world would other dictators exist? Absolutely. Murderers and dictators will (unfortunately) probably always exist.

However, this doesn't mean we should look at past dictatorships and their intellectual heritage and just shrug our shoulders at it because murderers will always exist.

Maybe Marx was just the opiate of the masses.

Probably.

[–]besttrousers 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well Mao and Maoists did kill millions. That happened.

Right, but you said Marxism was responsible. That's a causal claim, not a historical one. There's an association between Marxism and evil dictatorships. Is that because Marxism causes evil dictatorships, or is it because evil dictatorships need an ideology to justify their bullshit?

When I was in Sudan one of things I thought was fascinating is how the country had made the transition from British colony to Communist Dictatorship to Sharia law. Three very different ideologies, one set of #extractiveinstitutions.

[–]wumbotarianfenance 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, but you said Marxism was responsible.

Maoism is Marxism just as much as IO is microeconomics. (Though IO isn't as heinous.)

There's an association between Marxism and evil dictatorships. Is that because Marxism causes evil dictatorships, or is it because evil dictatorships need an ideology to justify their bullshit?

I'd say cause. Dictatorship and a strong state was necessary according to Marx, to usher in communism. The USSR and Maoist China believed this as well.

When I was in Sudan one of things I thought was fascinating is how the country had made the transition from British colony to Communist Dictatorship to Sharia law. Three very different ideologies, one set of #extractiveinstitutions.

Oh sure! All three create extractive institutions. But that's not really my argument. My argument is that Marxism caused certain extractive institutions not that others don't (nor that others don't cause the same ones).

[–]arktourosR1 submitter 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think that's a good counter argument. Here's why: if I go back and kill Hitler before he kills all those Jews, someone else could have taken that role. Sure, but that doesn't really help the counterfactual.

[–]DrSandbagsSurgically-Augmented Dickey-Fuller 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

This proves my point exactly. Some people find it impossible to have a nuanced adult conversation about the LTV, historical materialism, surplus value, and empirical tests of Marxian theories because people just respond with "lol Marx's theories are all wrong because Lenin and Mao!" Commenters in this sub make those responses and then people like /u/the_old_gentleman who have actually read about Marxism in other places than National Review come on and completely embarrass everyone simply by pointing out that they have absolutely no idea what academic Marxist thought was in 1848 nor what it is today.

[–]wumbotarianfenance 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

This proves my point exactly. Some people find it impossible to have a nuanced adult conversation about the LTV, historical materialism, surplus value, and empirical tests of Marxian theories

Nuanced and adult? Sure we can talk about anachronistic and bad theory. But to deny that Marxist theory isn't inundated with central planning is completely revisionist. Saying it's "constantly evolving" is like saying "it's just a prank!" after smashing someone's car with a sledgehammer.

No, Marxism isn't "evolving", it's backpedaling and trying to distance itself from old theory. Repackaging central planning in a bow and gift wrapping paper - see people who think advances in computing power can solve the planning problem.

because people just respond with "lol Marx's theories are all wrong because Lenin and Mao!"

Notice how I never said that. I never said the LTV is wrong because of Mao. I said that Marxian thought influenced Lenin and Mao. That Marxian scholars supported Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Commenters in this sub make those responses and then people like /u/the_old_gentleman who have actually read about Marxism in other places than National Review come on and completely embarrass everyone simply by pointing out that they have absolutely no idea what academic Marxist thought was in 1848 nor what it is today.

This is a silly and baseless criticism. Honestly, most of my understanding of Marxism comes from reading people like TOG or through YouTube videos from Marxian economists (like Richard Wolfd Also). Further, I don't see why we should plunge into the depths of Marxian thought since it's rather apparent that Marxists don't care about the same sort of questions economists care about.

[–]DrSandbagsSurgically-Augmented Dickey-Fuller 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I said that Marxian thought influenced Lenin and Mao.

So what point were you trying to make? I'm talking about evaluating Marx based on Marx, not what people who were influenced by him did. There's a lot of overlap but also a lot that doesn't.

That Marxian scholars supported Lenin, Stalin and Mao

And many didn't. Like the Trots.

This is a silly and baseless criticism. Honestly, most of my understanding of Marxism comes from reading people like TOG or through YouTube videos from Marxian economists (like Richard Wolfd Also).

Great, honestly you're one of the more well-read on here, but you have to admit you're the exception.

[–]wumbotarianfenance -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

So what point were you trying to make? I'm talking about evaluating Marx based on Marx, not what people who were influenced by him did.

So basically we're going to ignore those who evaluated Marx but came up with an unsavory evaluation (again, you're trying your hardest to distance yourself from millions of deaths) because it just wasn't "real" Marxian economics.

But go back a few decades and you'll plainly see that it was, indeed, real Marxian economics. The academics and intellectuals who were Marxists - who evaluated Marx!!! - supported central planning.

Great, honestly you're one of the more well-read on here, but you have to admit you're the exception.

Yes, I get that. I'll certainly discus certain topics - LTV and other stuff - but I think there was some glossing over of the actually bad things Marxists have come up with.

[–]DrSandbagsSurgically-Augmented Dickey-Fuller 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So basically we're going to ignore those who evaluated Marx but came up with an unsavory evaluation because it just wasn't "real" Marxian economics.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. You seem to be constructing some sort of strawman who denies that Marxist schools of thought influenced people behind Soviet and Sino atrocities. If Marx wrote "surplus value means go out and kill 50 million people" you might have nailed me to the wall on that.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 0ポイント1ポイント  (31子コメント)

Can't the same be said for capitalism? Capitalism drove colonialism which also caused millions of deaths.

[–]wumbotarianfenance 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

I don't know. I don't care about the word "capitalism".

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Because you have a double standard when it comes to socialism. :P

[–]wumbotarianfenance 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't care about giving capitalism some True Meaning like socialists do.

America is capitalist. The USSR is communist. Venezuela is socialist. End of story, you won't be able to appropriate these old words.

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

To claim America is capitalist requires capitalism to have a definition, specifically private ownership of capital and markets. Then the same can be said about capitalism; it is implicated in colonialism and millions of deaths.

[–]wumbotarianfenance 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

To claim America is capitalist requires capitalism to have a definition, specifically private ownership of capital and markets.

Sure, it doss incorporate private ownership of capital and markers and regulations of companies and whatever.

Then the same can be said about capitalism; it is implicated in colonialism and millions of deaths.

Set theory much? Elements of capitalism could be in colonialism (is colonialism a system of economic distribution? or is it foreign policy?) but that doesn't mean capitalism and colonialism are the same set. Remember A=B if they both contain the same elements and only those same elements.

Now maybe you're saying capitalism is a subset of colonialism. I think that's hard to state - Canada is not colonial but it is capitalist.

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Set theory much?

Who said they were equal sets? I said implicated in colonialism, /u/lorenzorye said it drove colonialism. (I would say they are endogenous rather than capitalism ->colonialism, hence the more qualified term.) We're talking institutions and causality, not abstract sets of qualities.

Canada is not colonial

Lolwhut. Where do you think all the white people came from?

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

Fine the organic system once described by Adam Smith.

Is that better?

[–]wumbotarianfenance 6ポイント7ポイント  (10子コメント)

The propensity to truck, barter and exchange? Trucking, bartering and exchanging has lifted millions out of poverty.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

So did communism.

[–]arktourosR1 submitter 7ポイント8ポイント  (8子コメント)

No, he said out of poverty.

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/8/9/was-central-planning-really-inefficient.html

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yea, because the SU definitely had no success in raising the standard of living for the vast majority of its citizens.

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

I don't see what colonialism has to do with market allocation of resources and private property rights. If anything colonialism was driven by absolute monarchies and mercantilism.

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Bullshit. What was the greatest colonial power in world history? Britain. Where was the birthplace of industrial capitalism? Britain. How did Britain conquer India? With joint stock corporation, the East India Company.

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Again, I don't see what colonialism has to do with market allocation of resources and private property rights.

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

The British Empire was not driven by absolute monarchies. While it dabbled in mercantilism in the early days, by it's heyday it embraced lassiez-faire economic policy. The blindingly obvious example of how these policies interacted with imperialism is the East India Company: a private joint stock company that sought to maximize shareholder value though imperialism in India. Another example would be the Opium Wars: the Qing Empire was attacked to allow private enterprises to sell opium in China and to established most favored nation status (basically the prevention of trade barriers.)

I could go on if you want me to write a R1 about capitalism and empire. :P

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What are you trying to say, that without market allocation of resources and private property rights we wouldn't have had as much imperialism? Groups of people have been conquering others for their resources since before recorded history. Spain, Portugal and the Dutch Republic had overseas colonies before Adam Smith was even born.

[–]LordBufoThe Best Romer 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I am saying is that the system "market allocation with private property rights" historically interacted with colonialism. I'm not saying one caused the other per se, they're endogenous. (e.g. capitalism provided economic incentives for the British Empire, which spread capitalist institutions to it's colonies). Constructing a counterfactual would require a model of how the two interact.

The Spanish Empire's core economic institutions were the hacienda and repartimiento. The repartimiento system meant labor was not allocated via a wage market, but forced labor definitely co-existed with private property market economies like the antebellum south. The hacienda system was a typical colonial institution: privately owned resource extraction operations that exported goods to Spain.

The Dutch Republic was extremely capitalist. They had a public joint-stock company, the Dutch East India Company or VOC, that colonized South-East Asia.

The Portugese Empire was probably the least capitalist as it's main enterprise was the spice trade, which it centrally planned from the Casa da Indiá. In Brazil it had similar institutions to the Spanish Empire though.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't see what killing people has to do with state ownership of the means of production. If anything mass killing was driven by maniacal dictators and rights suppression.

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well, the inadvertent deaths were a direct result of misguided socialism-inspired policies.

The intentional killings were for the purpose of eliminating ideological enemies and political rivals in order to hasten the development of the new society.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

And the killing of millions of native people so resources could be exploited wasn't driven by a perversion of property rights?

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are blaming property rights for the colonizers' desire to extract resources?

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Only facetiously.

[–]usrname42thank 14ポイント15ポイント  (7子コメント)

This feels like the people who think Friedman is Satan because of Pinochet. Or saying that Darwin is responsible for eugenics and Hitler so evolution is therefore false. You should be able to evaluate the school of thought based on whether it's right.

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

My problem with Marx is that his school of thought is inherently agenda-driven, or at the very least it takes certain developments and outcomes as a given. The only legitimate agenda for a school of thought is the pursuit of verifiable knowledge concerning how reality truly works.

There seems to be two main types of people in academia. The first type (Type I) strive to be detached, objective observers of some aspect of reality. They have one goal: to better understand how the world works. The second type (Type II) seems to have a dual agenda: to better understand how the world works in order to facilitate bringing some ideal conception of existence to fruition. The first type is what we hope is true for all academics, striving to be as unbiased while observing the world as humanly possible. The second type give academia a bad name, putting activism equal to or ahead of the pursuit of verifiable knowledge. I don't see how a Marxist can be a Type I academic.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

Type I doesn't exist.

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is what Type II people tell themselves to rationalize their lack of effort in suppressing their bias.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Being unbiased in your field does not mean you exist as an unbiased individual. I try my best to approach my field with objectivity, that doesn't mean I don't consider myself an activist in other areas of my life.

In your world an academic wouldn't even be allowed to vote or speak their mind if it was anything political, because that would mean it would show bias.

Even within our fields once we are convinced that what we see is true we try our best to convince other scientists that our data represents a physical phenomena. Is that activism? Is that bias? Where do we draw the line?

[–]Commodore_ObviousAlways Be Shilling -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I try my best to approach my field with objectivity

That's the thing, many academics fail miserably at this. See sociology.

[–]lorenzoryeNew Age Fun with a Vintage Feel 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you are overestimating how much sociologist try to influence policy and underestimating how much policy makers try to use sociology to justify their decisions.

[–]wumbotarianfenance 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

This feels like the people who think Friedman is Satan because of Pinochet. Or saying that Darwin is responsible for eugenics and Hitler so evolution is therefore false. You should be able to evaluate the school of thought based on whether it's right.

I am not saying Marx caused gulags. I'm saying that the way the "school of thought thing" was phrased was a particularly revisionist way of looking at the path of Marxist thought.

Like it or not, the USSR had many intellectuals - and economists - supporting central planning. Like it or not, this is the legacy of Marxist thought.

Maybe Marxists today reject these old schools of thought - "evolving" if you will. But just because Marxists today step around the blood on the hands of their predecessors doesn't mean old Marxist intellectuals didn't wreak havoc on millions of lives. I reject this notion that we wear rose-colored glasses when evaluating the impact Marx has had on the world.

Also the Pinochet-Friedman link is tenuous at best. Marx, however, directly influenced Bolsheviks, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. Pinochet didn't erect giant busts of Friedman nor did he have propaganda with Friedman's face telling Chileans how great markets were. The USSR and China, however, did this for Marx and communism.

Edited for clarity.