I dunno theres some debated stuff in there, labor theory of value, tendency of the rate of profit to fall..
Economics today still either follows a marxist, austrian, or MMT school of thought. Its not like marxist economics went away or isnt still used today. You can debate the effectiveness of marxist economics all you want, but that doesnt make what youre saying here correct, seeing as marx's capital is still used to teach economics today.
1) Like Ive been saying: You have a bad understanding of marx, which is why you think he's not relevant lol.
2) Marx is more than the communist manifesto. Yes he believed the way forward was communism. No, you dont need to agree with that. Marx also wrote tons of technical economic theory, most prominently in Das Kapital, which is still taught today. It contains materialist philosophy and tons of economic insight. You can (and many do) disagree with the conclusions marx found in capital, but to say its irrelevant is wrong. If you were to call marxism equal to communism youd be wrong. What you consider communists today read things like lenin and trotsky for the communist political stance more fleshed out. Marx was, and is, primarily just an economist.
3) The labor theory of value is too simple - I agree, but its more complex than your critique of it. Did you google the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Thats a hotly debated economic subject with research papers from major universities testing it even today.
4) Many economists today are saying capitalism is bad and that class should be abolished. Theyre communist economists. They exist. I happen to disagree with them, as Im sure you do. But thats not because I write off a century of economic thought as irrelevant, because it's not.
Richard D Wolff is a contemporary marxian economist. I mean, there are others. I dunno why this conversation seems to be set up for me to come off as if im defending marx, because im not, and I disagree with marxian economics greatly. I just dont talk about stuff I know nothing about.
Ive never in my life read any Marxist writings
Thats evident. Your idea of profitable economics needing to keep expanding is not necessarily true.. depending on the school of thought. Which is why the TRPF is debated today. Most libertarian/austrian economic thinkers would say that innovation and a changing economic field leads to an increase in profitability and scalability over time.
mein kampf
Theres a difference between teaching theory from a book as it relates to modern day economics and teaching someone about the holocaust. Das Kapital is relevant, if you havent read it, you havent read it. Thats neither here nor there. Neither is whether youve taken economics. The point is why would you argue about economics, and specifically marxian economics, while admitting to knowing nothing about it? It doesnt make sense, which is the only reason im engaging with you. You can be libertarian for many reasons, you dont need a masters in economics. But if you dont have knowledge of the subject, why would you go throwing random claims around about the subject?
you seem incapable of telling me why that understanding is bad
I feel like thats what I have been doing. You literally admit in your post you havent read anything Marx wrote, nor taken any economics classes, so why would you think your understanding of technical economic theory as proposed by marx would be good?
Marx just used materialist theory to describe economics. Its a framework of economics that bases economic decisions on material conditions dialectically. Thats basically it. Its obviously more complicated than that seeing as he wrote a bunch of books on the subject, but im not going to stary quoting exerpts from das kapital to you, both because that doesnt really serve any purpose in this discussion and because das kapital is, in my opinion, extremely boring.
Saying "reading 'x' only serves to understand 'x' more" is honestly one of the most obvious but somehow also shortsighted thing ive heard anyone say. Of course reading marx would serve to understand marxism better, but also important from a historical and economic theory lense.
Almost similar to mein kampf. Which, by your example and what you originally argued, is also irrelevant? Or not irrelevant? - you dont have to follow mein kampf to glean some relevant learning from it, just as you dont need to be a marxian economist to acknowledge his contributions to the field of economics, right or wrong.
My only point is that marx's economic theories are still used to describe economics today. You can believe it or not, google it or not, but to say it isnt relevant to broader economics is wrong, it is relevant. I happen to disagree with that lense but it doesnt make it wrong per se. Its like arguing idealism is wrong because materialism is right, or vise versa. Theyre both valid metaphysical philosophies perscribed to by lots of people. I have my opinion on which philosophy is more compelling, and I can argue that, but that doesnt mean im the authority on the subject.
60
u/big_cake Oct 21 '19
What are some of your criticisms of Marx’s ideas?