Whose economic views and vision do you most agree with?

Whose economic views and vision do you most agree with?


  • Total voters
    41

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,318
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,749
Typical Coli Posters

:heh:

I bet you guys hang out in coffee shops and talk about organic farming and white privilege.

"Yeah bro, the flyover state "wrong type of white people" are totally ruining this country, if only they could study fine art at an elite north eastern university like us good white people"

:heh:

yeah well this is you you annoying faggit.

251928_418142578238046_837336005_n.jpg



why don't you go to mises.org or something :pacspit:
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,352
Reputation
725
Daps
10,731
Reppin
NYC
Wage Labour and Capital and Das Kapital were that piff though :dj2:

I don't like Marx much as a solution but some his observations (alienation of labour) are brilliant to me :manny:

That's the thing about Marx. If you look at the short term or even at the specific timeline for the future he set out, many of his observations seem suspect, but almost all his long term predictions about the developments of capitalism have come true. And another thing, which he never gets credit for, is that there's no other thinker of capitalism from that period who tried to understand capitalism at its best AND at its worst. He called it simultaneously the most creative (and if you read even the Manifesto, at parts he sounds more pro-market than modern neoliberal fanatics) and the most destructive economic order in history. Even if you completely reject all his theses, our attempt to understand it should follow from that same spirit.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,799
Reputation
570
Daps
22,758
Reppin
Arrakis
That's fine, but my statement was confined to Marxism as defined in this thread- some of the specific ideas of Marx himself, not to the umbrella category of Marxism as a whole.

your statement was

I don't think Marxism as Marx described it would work

I am agreeing with that statement and that is the deal

and we already know Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, and Chaveszism, KimJungIlism, HoChiMingism etc etc dont work so i think we can safely say that there isnt any form of Marxism that has ever worked, not even Marx's
 

babylon1

Pro
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
2,387
Reputation
-400
Daps
2,264
Reppin
NULL
your statement was

I don't think Marxism as Marx described it would work

I am agreeing with that statement and that is the deal

and we already know Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, and Chaveszism, KimJungIlism, HoChiMingism etc etc dont work so i think we can safely say that there isnt any form of Marxism that has ever worked, not even Marx's
you fukking moron. none of the isms you listed above are marxism. crack open a fukken book you piece of shyt
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,606
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
@Broke Wave went with Marx? I thought you would have gone with Keynes for sure....

:ohhh:
I was just about to make a post.

I agree with Marx more than anybody based on more of a philosophical tip. Marx more than a "economist" was a historian and social scientist who radically questioned the status quo of class hierarchy, which has been entrenched in society since the beginning of recorded history. He questioned the validity of the capitalist system as he knew it and challenged notions of modernity.

Keynes is obviously the best economist out of the 3 traditional choices, Hayek was a paranoid radical (sorry @ogc163) who didn't actually contribute anything tangible to the objective field of economics, and Friedman was a two faced liar who didn't even believe what he was saying many times. On the one hand he would talk about strict monetary policy, yet in his academic papers he would talk about a helicopter drop of money to get out of a liquidity trap ; a point brought forward by Krugman. Also, Friedman's ideas had to be implemented by a dictator in Pinochet, he is just generally a reprehensible guy and his ideas ultimately failed us and gave us the crash, according to his disciple Greenspan.
 

TrueEpic08

Dum Shiny
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,035
Reputation
931
Daps
17,210
Reppin
SoCal State Beaches
@TrueEpic08 too. I didn't include any anarchists though.

Nah, it's not a No True Scotsman. Name a single attempt at Marxism in history that actually mirrors Marx's description of it, which is a very simple standard by which to judge them. I don't think Marxism as Marx described it would work, but it has never actually been tried, and so never been judged on its own merits.

The interesting thing about Marxist economic theory to me is this: I use it and believe in its theories more than I do any other theory, but I don't believe that it's goals can be accomplished in the State Socialist sense that Marx desired, but instead in a more anarchist sense. The history of states attempting to create the territory for (any type of) communism in the context of a state tends to either turn out like the descendents of the Third International (bureaucratic State Capitalism, as seen in Russia and China, which never quite decoupled from capitalist formulations of society and value, much less the international political economy itself) or usually take more anarchistic forms (Anarchist Catalonia, Ukranian Free Territory, Chiapas). Through more mutualist, syndicalist, and/or collectivist means, you could actually say that the more anarchist leaning communities actually have better results at achieving the goals behind Marxian economic and sociological analysis. How do you combat the tyranny of capitalist value formation and commodity fetishism if you're still part and parcel in a commodity economy, as the statists were? How can you combat alienation when Leninist bureaucracy has much of the same relation to a worker that a random boss in Capitalist society has to its worker?

To clearly answer the question (I haven't voted; not sure if I will like @The Real), I'm more Marxist than anything, because I'm against the currency system and think that orthodox economics is largely junk science, based on the actual history of Capitalism. But I tend to filter it through more Anarchist modes of thought. Kropotkin, Dejacque, new Anarchists such as David Graeber, organizations such as Abahlali baseMjondolo even alternative modes of economics such as Potlach. For me, it's more about achieving the goals of Marxian economic analysis than being completely enslaved to its methods. And for that, you need to look everywhere, not just in economic theories (and I'm basically a theorist by trade at this point).
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,318
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,749
I was just about to make a post.

I agree with Marx more than anybody based on more of a philosophical tip. Marx more than a "economist" was a historian and social scientist who radically questioned the status quo of class hierarchy, which has been entrenched in society since the beginning of recorded history. He questioned the validity of the capitalist system as he knew it and challenged notions of modernity..
Yes. I enjoy Marx quite a bit in the respect that like Nietzsche he was able to address a number of topics comfortably without wholly compromising his worldview (even though I don't agree on any consistent basis with either). Great post, thanks.
 

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,145
Daps
22,343
Reppin
Bronx, NYC
He did think the government should do nothing to interfere in markets correct?

As far as welfare, I shouldn't have said none, but I think he was ambiguous and contradictory. I know he spoke about the need for wealthy nations to provide some basic minimum of food and "social insurance" (I'm on my phone, don't feel like pulling up the quote), which he later retracted, and he opposed social security and Medicare. So it's hard to identify what forms of social welfare Hayek would support, if any.

Actually in both The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty he does write about government interference/regulation being necessary on the micro level, even in terms of personal property disputes Hayek was to the "left' of the proverbial right in that he didn't embrace the Coase Theorem that most free market economist agree with.
 

TrueEpic08

Dum Shiny
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,035
Reputation
931
Daps
17,210
Reppin
SoCal State Beaches
That's the thing about Marx. If you look at the short term or even at the specific timeline for the future he set out, many of his observations seem suspect, but almost all his long term predictions about the developments of capitalism have come true. And another thing, which he never gets credit for, is that there's no other thinker of capitalism from that period who tried to understand capitalism at its best AND at its worst. He called it simultaneously the most creative (and if you read even the Manifesto, at parts he sounds more pro-market than modern neoliberal fanatics) and the most destructive economic order in history. Even if you completely reject all his theses, our attempt to understand it should follow from that same spirit.

I was watching Marx Reloaded a couple of days ago, and Alberto Toscano (Italian Philosopher) had an interesting point about why this comes up in Marx's economic writings so much: as a theorist of capitalism, Toscano compared Marx to a detective more than anything. And generally, one thing that a good detective does (in his mind, anyway) is get into the head of the criminal. He equated this to the way that Marx wrote on capitalism; a big reason why he can read like this sometimes (see "Fragment on Machines," for an example) is because he's attempting to think like a Capitalist more than like an anti-Capitalist sociologist. It's a very useful thought exercise.

And besides, when I read sentences that sound like "Capitalism was the most revolutionary system of societal organization in history," it's often from anti-Capitalists or outright Marxists attempting to pick apart Capitalism.
 
Top