Marxists?

Post Reply New Topic

Until the 12th century, virtually all exchanges were non-economic. Marginal existence of market mechanisms is not capitalism.

Define non-economic exchange.

I'm a non-marxist far-leftist

Marxism is useful as framework to examine the developments of some societies at various scales

Obviously much of what Marx wrote is obsolete or bs,but Das Kapital did and do make some sense,unlikely 95% of what modern bourgois mainstream orthodox economists (no matter if they learn right like Mankiw or left like Krugman) have to say.

Actually "mainstream economics" is far more pseudoscientific and ideological than marxism because it fails to incorporate human behaviour,ethics and history.

yes,I agree...but more than "genuine socialism is state free" is "capitalism is too instable and need a strong state".
Capitalism is the product of the State and the State and the Capitalist class historically go hand to hand.
This is the reason why Anarchism/Libertarian socialism ,maybe, is too idealistic and naive but it far far more coherent philosophy than that phile of garbage that is "american libertarianism"

You have heard of behavioral economics right?

Well I don't think the majority having less than the few is a very good way to divide the resources. Also communism has yet to exist, there has not really been a communist society to speak of....there have been attempts at it that have failed. But capitalism seems to be doing a good job of failing itself.

Also capitalism kind of depends on currency to exist, without currency there would be no capitalism.

Yeah.

But behavioral economists are just "discovering" what marketers and psychologists know since at least a century

Your statement here is not one of economics but one of some form of morality. However a very short-sighted a blue eyed, some would even say naive morality. "The few" get resources because they have repeatedly proven that they are good at managing them and turning them into more resources. Like, I get more money just about every single day of the year, because I invested mine in things like stocks, bonds and property, as opposed to weed, alcohol and strippers.

To do an analogy I'm sure you can understand. Let's say you have $100 and Tyrone has $100, you go out and buy a bag of weed, a bottle of coke and some domino's. Tyrone goes out and buys some potting soil, some plant nutrients and 5 marijuana seeds. While you're pulling on your bong and watching reruns of "Who's the boss", Tyrone is caring for his plants, making sure they grow strong, harvesting them and selling the product. When the first run around, you get $100 more and so does Tyrone, but while you smoked yours, Tyrone now has $100 plus the proceeds from last months $100. So you go and buy more weed, from Tyrone, who now has $50 of your $100 as well, so he has his $100, plus $50 from you, plus the proceeds of last months $100.

Tyrone gets that money because he's good with money and uses it in a way that gives him benefits over a period of time, which is how most "few" got their money. If you and I take on a job to paint a fence and it takes a total of 10 labor hours, out of which I do 8 and you do 2, the fair split isn't that we each get half the money, the fair split is that I get 80%.

And I do not really see how this analogy shows that its a good thing that the very few are in control of most of the wealth and resources while the masses are left to fight over the scraps left over.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 01 Sep 2012, 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The biggest treaths for liberalism(modern conservatorism,american libertarianism and modern liberalism are all branches of classical liberalism ) and "free-market" ideologies is not longer Marxism but :

1)environmentalism
2)Finance

liberal\individualistic theories were developed in a context of "empty world": a lot of resources,scarce population,few "collective problems"

We are now living in a "full world"....more than 10x the inhabitants,more key resources(like oil and fish) at risk,a lot of "collective problems" (Global Warming)

Plus the economics is less and everyday about "production" but more about "make money with money "($1.2 quadrillion derivatives market)

The vast majority of progress were made by government sponsored or subsided researches.

1) You've only proven that the state HAS done this, not that it had to do anything. The US government has taken lots of actions out of blind paranoia.
2) Every society has shut down popular revolt at one time or another. It's a sign of social distress, but it doesn't mean the system has broken. The Civil War was a much larger revolt, and a much larger threat, but American government has lasted over 100 years after it ended. The fact that it could suppress this shows that the germ of rebellion was very small and weak, as powerful political movements, such as the Civil Rights movement are hard to suppress, even if they respond to threats.
3) Even if the current system is flawed, that doesn't prove what the failing is, and certainly not the particular sub-division of Marxist criticism is correct. There are lots of criticisms of capitalism, and not all of them are Marxian.

Maybe I am being particularly bad at following your points, but I am not seeing your particular point.

Technically, Marxism can't be debunked, and that metric of capitalism can't be proven. So, in both cases, there is no proper evaluation.

The point isn't that rich people do not spend money on strippers, drugs and alcohol, they do, but they do so after having ensured that they have enough money to cover their obligations. What is naive is being a proponent of a theory (marxism) which requires a different humanity and a different world (one with abundant resources).

Now, the "wealthy" are doing a decent job at managing resources, have the exponential growth in standard of living and production since the implementation of the capitalistic system totally eluded you?

As a note "blue eyed" is a metaphorical way of saying "naive". Gather resources in one hand, and that hand can do one great thing, distribute resources in many hands and those hands do little things. It's that simple. As I've told you before, come back to this discussion when you've actually done economics 101.

This whole idea of people with economic knowledge and expertise discussing economics with people with 0 background in it, is literally pearls before swine. (METAPHORICAL)

but modern capitalism is mostly consumer-driven,statistically the economics tend to better when wealth is distribuited more equally

I think its meaning is relatively obvious. Examples include difts (and counter-gifts), tributes, symbolic rents which showed dominance or protection, etc. All are meaningful from an economic point of view and performed an economic function in practice, but were pursued for social or political reasons.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 01 Sep 2012, 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marx was dead wrong when he assumed that the Workers would arise and the Working Class would become the rulers of society. Such a thing has never happened and nothing even close to it has happened. Marx suffered from an overdone of Hegel. There. I have debunked Marx both on factual and philosophical grounds. As to Capitalism, it has never happened either. We have Mixed Economies in which markets operate but they are regulated and restricted by political considerations. A pure capitalist economy is phantom, a delusion , a hallucination.

ruveyn

gift economics made 99% of human history then mankind jumped directly to money .

Ironically,contrary to popular conception, there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.