The global economy is not in an immediate crisis — Uber
You can get some NY style cheesecake if you look at the whole thing very superficially, as if all answers are in plain view. You don't get any Chinese cheesecake that way, though. — frank
There are, apparently, game-theoretic Marxists, so I'm not sure why you believe simply being sympathetic to the use of game theory would lead one to be a capitalist. In any case, as I understand it, to apply game theory to economics you need to come with certain background assumptions about what a rational agent is, and of course for Marxists, there is no non-historical conception of rationality, and so they would perhaps be likely to suspect that if a game-theoretical model leads to capitalism as a choice of economic system, then the dice were loaded from the beginning. — MetaphysicsNow
This hits a certain "nail on the head". Marx famously had England in mind as the country sufficiently developed enough to make socialism a reality - he was very clear that socialism would only succeed once capitalism had developed productive forces to the required capacity (he seems to have thought that only capitalism could accomplish this, but I'm not sure whether he was correct about that). Russia was way too backward economically, as far as Marx would have been concerned, to provide a viable context for socialism - and in the long run that seems to have been proven, although things may have been different if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin (far from certain). Lenin tried to adapt Marx (theoretically as well as practically) so that Russia could become a model socialist state, but arguably failed.Hence, why I believe that the communism we have witnessed already have all been premature.
This hits a certain "nail on the head". Marx famously had England in mind as the country sufficiently developed enough to make socialism a reality - he was very clear that socialism would only succeed once capitalism had developed productive forces to the required capacity (he seems to have thought that only capitalism could accomplish this, but I'm not sure whether he was correct about that). Russia was way too backward economically, as far as Marx would have been concerned, to provide a viable context for socialism - and in the long run that seems to have been proven, although things may have been different if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin (far from certain). Lenin tried to adapt Marx (theoretically as well as practically) so that Russia could become a model socialist state, but arguably failed. — MetaphysicsNow
How about a book club on Capital? Starting with volume 1 of course. I have some side-projects to put to bed before embarking on that, but I'd welcome the opportunity to reread it whilst having an ongoing discussion about its contents. I'll try to set something up over the summer. — MetaphysicsNow
Where does he state that? Marx recognised that real wages could go up as well as down in capitalist systems.Marx stated that workers would go to the lowest level of poverty, and that most definitely did not happen.
We know no such thing. As I stated in my earlier post in which I questioned how much of Marx you had actually read, I said that there is empirical evidence to suggest that the labour theory of value is actually true. Sure, we can debate that evidence if you like, but the fact that there is such evidence to be debated already falsifies your claim that we know it to be false. It may not be true a priori, but that's not the same thing as being false.We know the labor-theory of value is false,
I think LD Sanders was responding to the wrong person, and had me in mind when he threw the "theory of value is false" in your face. Having said that, I'd rather pick this up with you than LD Sanders, as I stand a good chance of getting a meaningful discussion of the idea.I have already said the labor theory of value is "fictitious."
1) The labor theory of value is false. — Uber
I believe you and I are largely on the same page, but in terms of Marxist economics, one thing that bothers me about this remark is that Marx is pretty clear that real wealth (i.e. surplus value as profit) cannot be created through the mere circulation of capital and, arguably, manipulation of financial instruments is precisely and only that. It's clear that the illusion of wealth can be created in this way, but illusions that are in the end exposed for what they are (and when they are exposed, they manifest in one form of economic crisis).A great deal of wealth is produced by the manipulation of currencies, stocks, bonds, etc.
Agreed, and I'm guilty of being one of the people that tend to compartmentalise Marx's economics from the rest of his theorizing. I happen to think that you can drop the historical materialism (particularly the materialism part) and retain the economic part without contradiction, although I could always be wrong about that.'Marxism' is a catch-all word for many different concepts
I have already said the labor theory of value is "fictitious."
I think LD Sanders was responding to the wrong person, and had me in mind when he threw the "theory of value is false" in your face. Having said that, I'd rather pick this up with you than LD Sanders, as I
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.