[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


 

is it actually worth studying BOURGEOIS economics? Either formally (i.e. at a university) or on one's own? Is bourgeois (particularly neoclassical) economics just a load of unempirical hogwash, merely the modern equivalent of scholastic/thomist philosophy or the divine right of kings? Or like the analytic marxists, should we simply convert marxist concepts over to a neoclassical framework? and if not is there really any reason to learn it other than to debunk it and debate liberals/neoliberals and rightoids.

 

>>1851835
it's useful if nothing else because all non-marxists think in terms of neoclassical concepts. bringing up shit like the labor theory of value is like speaking an alien language to most people

 

>unempirical hogwash
It‘s not unempirical per se, rather it‘s about what they choose to focus on (and what not) with the metrics they lay out and what misleading meaning they frame them to have.

On a different note, I think bourgeois economics is really a fascinating phenomenon because it tries really hard to have a scientific aesthetic while being founded on baseless assumptions and validating itself with self-serving constructs. It produces a lot of junk data but because graphs and formulas are presented people will think there must be something legitimate about it.

>Or like the analytic marxists, should we simply convert marxist concepts over to a neoclassical framework?

Analytic Marxists are not Marxists. And no, we shouldn‘t because that will only produce nonsense.

>and if not is there really any reason to learn it other than to debunk it and debate liberals/neoliberals and rightoids.

Marxism is all the theoretical material you need to debunk it.

 

>>1851859
>bringing up shit like the labor theory of value is like speaking an alien language to most people
That‘s the case for using terms from neoclassical economics as well, or do you think the average person who has been reduced to an alienated, specialized drone has proficient knowledge on neoclassical economics? The problem is breaking anything complex down and formulating it casually for people to understand, and not that Marxism is uniquely difficult to understand.

 

obviously you should study everything you can
and making a boogeyman out of the academy is facile superstition. If you want to argue with economists, you have to do in on their own terms

 

>>1851864
>obviously you should study everything you can
people have limited time anon…

 

>>1851864
>you have to do in on their own terms
Then prepare to fight a losing battle. You are engaging in frameworks of reasoning in which you are set to lose by default.

 

>>1851866
Good thing we live long lives
>>1851867
Not really. The thing with economocs is that it presupposes a normative outcome, i.e. "wealth", as per adam smith's veneration of free trade. But you can rework it to different ends.
For example, people say that inflation is the price of social programs, and all you have to do is agree but say that its worth it. The trap of economic thinking is to have your cake and eat it too. But if you admit the limits of any system then you can work it for your own ends.

 

Marx devoted a lot of time to meeting bourgeois economics on its own terms, in its own language. See Theories of Surplus Value.

 

the actual scientific parts of micro/macro didn't come from boog, in fact some of it comes from marx directly and his other contemporaries but they have washed away his name

the only parts of it that are boog is when they start waxing about how 'gommunism always fail, wow porky is so great' etc

so realy what these classe are ironically is marxist economics (where marx doesn't get credit) along with others, and propaganda slapped on top of it, which is incredibly ironic

 

Economics today serves the same purpose the Clergy did during medieval times, go at them like Martin Luther or Calvin

 

>>1851835
It's complicated because the role ot the bourgeois class is contradictory. On one hand, they do need an objectively true economic science to keep production running. But they are unable to create one because of their position in the process. For instance, they overemphasize finance and sales to a comical degree because that's what makes them money. They believe in it, too - they gut countries they already own thoroughly and hand productive forces over to other countries' bourgeois without a second thought.

 

File: 1715459923848.png (340.73 KB, 606x541, 1715317850018.png)

>>1851835
>is it actually worth studying BOURGEOIS economics?
Absolutely. You shouldnt even speak about economics without thorough studies in the subject.

 

>>1851835
>is it actually worth studying BOURGEOIS economics?
Yes.

 

it's worth studying how to form and organize political parties (both electoral and vanguard), unions, cooperatives, mutual aid groups, militias. It's worth learning how to link these organizations together and subject them to democratic centralism. It's worth learning how to conduct both legal and illegal direct action. It's worth studying the laws for your nation. It's worth studying medicine and firearms. It's worth studying guerilla warfare.

Yes, it is worth studying all sorts of economics, but you will only be able to apply that knowledge if your movement takes power. Winning debates with bourgeois economists by speaking Marxism in their (deliberately obfuscated since 1867) language is not worth your time.

 

It's not like the entire book is neoclassical stuff.

 

>>1851859
It hurts me how retarded this post is.

 

>>1851835
I don't have time for a lot of complex economic books, any podcats or idk, youtube videos or tiktok channels i can look into? To learn it from a communist/socialist perspective? I know there is a guy, like, cock shoted or something, never looked into him, or maybe "global economy report", but besides those, i can't remember other good ones. Maybe Hakim?

 

>>1852010
no podcast but this book is pretty simple and explains neoclassical/keynesian econ along with marxist econ obv from a marxist perspective and its good for beginners.

 

>>1851893
>they do need an objectively true economic science to keep production running
thats done by business administrators/managers, accountants, and financial analysts who only use the parts of bourgeois economics that have some value and mostly have their own theories about predicting shit on the level of an individual firm or market.

Even so academic finance theories have all kinds of unempirical bullshit because they don't have to test their ideas, so day traders and other people who work in finance have a more accurate idea of how to actually predict shit because their jobs and possibly millions of dollars are on the line.

Bottom line porkoids already have people to keep production running but they are not called economists, they are called managers and accountants (and maybe foremen for blue collar work).

 

>>1852054
I've always had a vague sense that a weak spot of Marxist economists is that they're rarely interested in grappling with the practical questions of running a specific firm - I can't shake the view that a truly scientific approach would grab onto that problem as it would any other, even if the information appears to be of negligible use for revolutionaries. (who prefer to theorise at the level of the economy as a whole, or in industry-specific terms.) It's one of those things where understanding is its own reward - and with the advantage of making things awkward for the "mainstream", since the simple parts of neoclassical theory tend to crumple on contact with empirical data from real firms.

 

>>1852078
the specifics of an individual firm would still follow the general rules of maximize surplus that can be reinvested in expanding production, research and development, etc. Research and development in specific fields and management science is what yields fruit in running individual firms.

 

>>1851835
>is it actually worth studying BOURGEOIS economics?
Yes. That is exactly what Marx did in his time. It doesn't mean you can't have a critique, it's just that these are the primary categories that most people understand and operate under in this historical epoch, including most workers. It's perfectly compatible with empiricism and it has led to the most accelerated development of technology and wealth ever recorded in world history. It just also so happens that it leads to contradictions on a mass scale and creates crises in the political sphere. This is why Marxism is specifically a "Critique of Political Economy", it demonstrates that these bourgeois categories have the potential to be overcome by their contradiction, the proletariat.

>Or like the analytic marxists, should we simply convert marxist concepts over to a neoclassical framework?

I don't even understand what you mean by this, you would have to point to examples. In general, Marxists should aim to clarify the various phenomena of capitalism and connect it to the worker's struggle. For example, in Marx's time workers understood themselves in Adam Smith and Ricardo's categories, "I want the fruit of my labour" "honest day's work, for an honest day's pay" "I have the right to work and live" etc. etc. You put those categories under investigation and you clarify why there is a surplus of labor, how capitalists rip you off and exploit people.


>is there really any reason to learn it other than to debunk it and debate liberals/neoliberals and rightoids.

"Debating" as seen online is useless, thoughtful conversation is not. The majority of people in the west are not socialists, but that doesn't mean they can't be convinced if you articulate things well and act respectfully. People have various reasons to believe what they want to believe, however in the case of most right-wingers it is often pathological and not worth investing time in.

 

It is if you do it simultaneously with marxist economics while being aware that there is not one "economics", its all different unproven unprovable theories that seek to explain thing marxist economics already does. Some parts of the theories, specifically macro economics, can be useful though.

 

File: 1715514120941.webm (Spoiler Image, 184.71 KB, 624x352, dickblastt.webm)

>>1852010
>I know there is a guy, like, cock shoted or something
You may not like it but this is what the future of socialism looks like.

 

>>1851879
>the actual scientific parts of micro/macro didn't come from boog, in fact some of it comes from marx directly and his other contemporaries but they have washed away his name
more the contemporaries. I think its more accurate to say that the progenitors of marginalism were raised in an intellectual environment in which the labor theory of value was taken for granted and so would have been intimately familiar with what it was they were rejecting.

It's more likely that they were familiar with the Smithian/Ricardian versions of the LTV than Marx since Marx was relatively unknown to mainstream economists of the late 19th century (and today as well obviously).

 

>>1851893
>They believe in it, too - they gut countries they already own thoroughly and hand productive forces over to other countries' bourgeois without a second thought.
thats more due to the theories of guys like Friedman and late GM CEO Jack Welch than neoclassical econ as a whole.

 

>>1852086
>>1852078
Well Lenin did have an interest in scientific management and taylorism if I recall, although this is sort of outdated and a modern marxist would do better to study industrial or systems engineering instead.

 

>>1852504
Yes, organizational theory also has come a long way since Lenin's time.

>>1852078
Marxism isn't a therapeutic critique of capitalism, but an argument for its abolition. You have made the traditional Marxist error of mistaking the warning for the instruction manual.

 

>>1851861
>redditors posting their pietism here

 

>>1852563 crosslinked: MARXIST POLITICAL ECONOMY GENERAL

 

>>1852589
A theraptutic critique has much better justification for not covering all levels than an abolitionist one. Keynesians can ignore the precise micro-level reasons why their methods (mostly) work by appeal to empirical results - theirs is an art, not a science. The immortal science ought to aspire to better, to understand the system in totality rather than in summary.
This is especially true when a number of practical struggles (like strikes and other union disputes) take place at the firm level.

 

>>1852741
You have to understand WHAT you're reading before you can even know HOW to read it, and Capital has clearly been misrepresented by friends and foes alike as a guidebook, rather than a condemnation. To properly understand it as a critique, one must first understand the method of political economy and the social analysis of production. This is the function of Appendix I, which was in fact the Introduction to the first draft. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx1.htm
The point you seem to be missing is that *firms* are themselves capitalist entities in a capitalist universe, and you are reading a book that is actually ABOUT and AGAINST that universe, so why would there be any recipes on how to run something in a not-capitalist way?
One who understands historical materialism sees the generation of such recipes as utopian wishcasting, and delusionally mythic to expect that they would still work on a world 140 years and at least half a continent away. It smacks of petit-bourgeois 8yos bothering their parents in the kitchen abuot how the kid "can do it better".
The correct answer is that the people who are most familiar with the actual material processes of concern are going to be the ones best situated to operate the technological base at revolution time, and to wind down the relations that constituted the bourgeois order while wiring up the circuits of production.
These are not neurotically "planned" by some absentee bishop's council. They evolve out of the material and social conditions that apply, and they only start from the bourgeois economic status quo.
>the immortal science
RevCom or cryptofascist?

 

>>1853570
>so why would there be any recipes on how to run something in a not-capitalist way?
There wouldn't: what there would be is recipes on how to run something in a capitalist way. (Strictly speaking, not recipes - empirical observations which a capitalist might nevertheless usefully deploy. one may be a pacifist and yet impartially analyse the best tactics for making war…) It is not a failure of Marx to address this, it is a failure of Marxists. If we are living with capitalist entities in a capitalist universe which we wish to destroy, that's a great reason to understand that universe at every possible level. If you wanted to destroy the earth, would you ignore all physical processes below the planetary scale?

 

>>1853590
Marx intended that people learn material production processes so that they would be able to produce something in the factory they just seized, NOT to extend the condition of bourgeois management as you would have us learn to do.
I have less than zero respect for petit-bourgeois tryhards learning an ideology in order to preserve their reactionary relations after the revolution. If you want to learn "small business" get a job.

 

>>1853608
It is not a question of extending, it is a question of understanding. If you wish to end a game of chess as quickly as possible and you are playing black, you would do well to understand all of the best moves that white can make. the bourgeoisie are going to understand how to manage things and they are going to try to preserve their position after a revolution regardless: the question is whether their opponents will understand precisely what they are doing at the "tactical" level, or only have a hazy picture of the overall strategy.

 

File: 1715625296294.png (234.86 KB, 1673x314, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1853622
>If you wish to end a game of chess as quickly as possible and you are playing black, you would do well to understand all of the best moves that white can make
Actual political economies are not closed contests with a recognized victor, and actors in these relations are not confined to act in accordance with game rules. A materialist understands the possibilities as well as the limits of what they are holding in their hands. That means understanding the laws of motion of the world in which they participate, most importantly the dialectic understanding that the world is *always in motion* and the individual bourgeois has great freedom to determine the form of the material world, and through that the constraints and possibilities that we have to deal with on subsequent days.
Appendix I of CPE https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx1.htm tells us how material production-consumption is prior to, and therefore constrains, distribution, circulation, and exchange.
>the bourgeoisie are going to understand how to manage things
Economicists tend to grossly overestimate their own contribution to processes already internalized by subordinates, and to express that estimate in bourgeois or merely institutionalist terms. It is well known that the reproduction of human life is the proper point of departure, not organization itself. I think you are tendentiously taking "organization" as a point of departure, and that is characteristic of a reactionary middle-class political and cultural outlook.
The vast majority of grand capitalists have little or no ability to practice the technologies of their own means of production. At the same time the production information and skill expropriated from us by the Taylorists Lenin too has been returned to us in an alien form, so to speak, through FOSS, piracy, direct access to Chinese markets, etc. against managers' and owners' will. The maker subculture likewise offers one template for demystifying industry and propagating individual competence.
It is notable that those who take Capital as a guidebook tend to lean into this process of dispossession and defense against its re-possession by the worker, all serving to make the proletariat harmless against the bourgeois interest in much the same way as did criminalization of literacy for chattel slaves.


Unique IPs: 21

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]