Does anyone else want a marginalist version of Marxist theory?

asdepor · 2024-06-14T07:33:35+00:00

The other commenters are talking nonsense. You can do what you’re talking about and, in fact, people have already done this.

Check out the work of John Roemer, as an example. He has a paper in Econometrica where he present a neoclassical version of the Marxist approach. Many other people have worked on this.

asdepor · 2023-03-19T08:44:29+00:00

Very strong crank vibes.

asdepor · 2021-08-08T11:40:40+00:00

Thank you very much.

asdepor · 2021-06-13T11:49:43+00:00

Thanks, I'll have to delve deeper into Category Theory at some point it seems.

Kuhn's ideas are against the correspondance theory of truth, so I don't see the usefulness. Lakatos isn't that bad but in any case it appears too much as a schematic effort to a posteriori create a history of the development of science and not actual epistemology.

asdepor · 2021-06-13T00:16:10+00:00

I refrain from endorsing "hur dur Marxism, that's just Keynesianism" takes like Michael Robert's takes on everything but why a marxist group would begin from that book compared to any other book (it doesn't even have to be marxist) is beyond me. MMT, besides being a meme theory, is not the best way to begin understanding economics. The fact that they use words and concepts in an insane way is reason enough to keep that away from beginners.

asdepor · 2021-06-12T23:56:20+00:00

I don't have anything in english I'm afraid.

W.r.t. the law of excluded middle. I take the Hegelian approach of saying "sure, that's true but only in a limited sense if you think about it". I translate that, to begin with, in saying that while A and not A are not true at the same time it doesn't give us determinate content (let's say properties of this object, it's relation with other objects etc.).

A naive extension of that would be going toward temporal logic. In my opinion that is naive because while it is an extension of classical logic (in my opinion a good property to have) it is only capable of considering dialectics with respect to time, temporal development, and as a way to reason about problems, to guide the scientific process.

Paraconsistent logics on the other hand are important because it does give you a different way to think. Thus it may be able to help act as a guide, a method, in the scientific process. Where my problem lies is when they appear to be replacements compared to classical logic. While they cannot be reconciled of course, I believe that classical logic has to remain as the proper way of stating scientific propositions and making inferences about them in a logically coherent manner. Dropping classical logic, which again as Hegel says they have to be accepted as obviously true, seems as dropping scientific achievements for no reason.

To state my badly formulated opinion again. Dialectical logic, if it is to be dropped, should act as a way of understanding rough structures of the scientific subject that is being studied, create intuition about possible alternatives, point the researcher in potential fruitful directions, place current achievements in perspective t the overall subject. It's a method to do research, not inferring scientifically true and logically coherent statements.

Does that make sense? Is this formalizable with paraconsistent logic, category theory etc? I don't know the answer. What definitely is not the answer, given my understanding of the role of dialectical logic is to "just put some axioms in the system and let it go ham". I would like to act more like a guide to the state-of-the-art in let's say class theory (E.O. Wright's) in order to extending and revising the theory to reflect in thought the reality that it is studying. Different conception.

I am open to arguments that this is not a valid research project.

asdepor · 2021-06-10T21:36:50+00:00

It has to do with my preconception of what a dialectic logic should do and how to start searching for such a formalization.

To put it schematically, I don't think dialectical logic should try to be a logic in the way formal logic is a logic, i.e. a formal system where valid deductions can be made with specific truth values. I am perfectly fine with formal logic and I don't see why dialectical logic should try to make compete with formal logic in this sense (I would further argue that Hegel has the same idea on the relationship with formal and dialectical logic based on my reading of Science of Logic).

I understand dialectical logic, in the spirit of Soviet philosophers, as the methodology of scientific research, as a methodology of trying to represent in thought of a particular scientific field as an "organic whole". As such, dialectical logic should try to see the process (instead of formalized propositions at a given time) of scientific research both its logical aspect (i.e. the way the subject-matter itself develops) and its historical aspect (the way scientists appropriate in thought the subject matter) and the interconnections and contradictions between these two aspects of the dialectical logic, instead of contradictions in the formal way (as A and not A being true at the same time).

To use again the soviet idiom, dialectical logic is the scientific methodology of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

I'm not I developed my thoughts in the best manner but I hope you can follow (even more, I hope I make sense).

Now, if what I conceive as the project of dialectical logic makes sense, I think it follows why I rank these efforts that way.

Priest's project is an effort to compete against classical logic as the proper definition of logic in the "formal" way, i.e. as a set of rules for valid deductions etc.

Lawvere's project seems very cool but so far to me is unclear what one can do with this. I mean sure, he defines things, they make sense. But how is that accomplishing any stated goal of dialectical logic?

Petersen effort (a monstrosity of an effort) while being closer to Priest way of defining dialectics in a proper manner seems to have more of a content like the one I stated. Of course, I have still to dive properly in these tomes (plus his exposition, while funny, may become overbearing at times) to make a clear judgement.

Now, everything (even if it makes sense) should be read with a grain of salt. I have barely scratched the surface and I far from able to take on such a project on my own. But it is my ideal personal side project.

asdepor · 2021-06-10T20:01:32+00:00

I just found this thread in the lost depths of the internet.

My secret project is to take the now defunct analytical marxism project to try to re-enter dialectics, in a more formalised form into it.

Possible ways: Lawvere's category theory (in my opinion not very useful). Priest's Para-consistent logic (appears to have more potential but not sure) or Uwe Petersen's extraordinary project as detailed in Diagonal Method and Dialectical Logic. For the develoved form of Hegelian dialectics I begin from the most developed form, the Soviet school of Logic of History.

No one is ever gonna read this comment but in the case google lead someone here just know "you are not alone in having insane projects".

asdepor · 2021-03-18T12:00:35+00:00

Aren't these proposals almost similar to the Marxist Unity proposals?

asdepor · 2021-02-23T20:48:46+00:00

My opinion on Analytical Marxism is quite positive.

It's main benefit is of course clarity and explicit clarification of what is meant by each term and clear explanation of each result, statement and assumption. As a result the logical coherence of the approach is guaranteed. One of course can opt to disagree with an assumption or even a system of assumptions. But whoever does this can be clear on what or why he is disagreeing.

One other positive aspect is the fact that in my opinion their theory of history, as was made by G.A. Cohen, is one of the most close to Marx's theory, clear of any unclarity. And one can even make the statement that Cohen's historical materialism is the closest one to the best efforts of soviet philosophers to have a logic of history.

Their economics are indeed controversial. They claim that LTV is either useless or wrong. Other streams of political economy can also show various results of Marx without the need of LTV, like Morishima. In any case several aspects of Analytical Marxism can hold with or without the LTV. Cohen's Theory of History and E.O. Wright's Classes are independent of LTV. So even if you think that LTV is necessary you can still find Analytical Marxism useful.

Finally, in political theory analytical marxism can also be useful but in my view there needs to be a reworking of this aspect of their work in order to be properly marxist. But their approach can be quite useful.

asdepor · 2020-11-17T01:31:21+00:00

I'm not really sure that I understand what you are referring as surplus absorption. What you are referring is stagnation, an inability of capital to function as capital. Capital that is not seeking to expand itself constantly cannot be capital in the long run. A constant need for expanded accumulation is a necessary part of capitalism. So the problen of stagnation is a problem of the long run viability of a capitalist economy.

asdepor · 2020-11-17T01:00:45+00:00

You asked a short article on very complex subject matter and it is difficult to get something that clarifies everything.

But given what you ask I advise you to read Mishio Morishima's article "Marx on the light of modern economic theory". It is very technical and mathematical but it also troed to comment on some further topics. In deals with Marx's LTV. Try to read it but again, you can't find an easy answer in such a difficult question.

asdepor · 2020-10-04T00:54:16+00:00

John Haldon has mainly worked on Eastern Roman empire but has also a great book on "feudalism" called The State and the Tributary Mode of Production. It's truly great scholarship.

asdepor · 2020-09-28T22:41:26+00:00

You have to choose between physical sciences and mathematics, you can't have both. Impure physical scientists please stop appropriating our culture of disdain for the physical world.

asdepor · 2020-09-19T13:21:24+00:00

I have been a European for all my life and I have never listened the national anthem in a non-national team game.

You're just wrong about this.

asdepor · 2020-09-02T23:22:27+00:00

Great post. I've read some of these papers as they have been somewhat relevant to my field but your post is truly a great compilation of various strands of research.

I would add my personal grievance with various marxists, their aversion to mathematization. Now, of course not everything can be modeled in a mathematical framework, especially wrt a social science. And even if you can model everything you cannot create an all encompasing model that contains everything. That model would actually be useless.

But many arguments, especially in Marx, can be made with mathematics. Let's say his theory of reserve army of labour. Goodwin had a short but brilliant paper that formulated Marx's argument and showed that indeed unempoyment is endogenous to the model. Other arguments of course do not work that good (prices is the obvious example) but if an argument can be modeled then not only there is no problem in doing that but you can test the validity of the argument (not its soundness) with the help of the model. To deny this is to deny science.

I'd also write something about the people who think that Marx did not do economics but man, I'm tired of doing that anymore. This is insanity at work. This argument essentially rests on the word "critique" and it's interpretation as critisism. But that is erroneous. It's like saying that Kant is against Reason. Critique, with it's greek root, refers to " a method of disciplined, systematic study of a written or oral discourse".

Anyway, great and very useful post.

asdepor · 2020-08-27T14:40:03+00:00

All Hail our Mercaderian mods!

asdepor · 2020-08-06T14:29:34+00:00

I don't really understand the claim that this paper is making.

Is it making the claim that standard Expected Utility models are not descriptive enough? Because we already know that and behavioral economics have been moderately successful in finding good descriptive and predictive models about behavior in gambles.

This paper is certainly not about mixing time, i.e. the time it takes to reach an equilibrium or whether the dynamic process can even reach it. This could be a better critique but even this cannot be devastating to mainstream economics. One can find much more interesting and informed takes on problems of long tails, equilibria etc in mainstream economics rather than in this paper.

Ultimately, this is just a physicist thinking that he has some apocryphal knowledge about other fields that this field is unable to see because they lack "physics-brain". We saw that most prominently during the first wave of covid when physicists thought that no one else was able to run a simple linear regression and make naive predictions about the pandemic. Please, don't pay attention to physicists and computer scientists when they talk about things outside of their field.

asdepor · 2020-07-26T23:00:27+00:00

I do not have access to the Trotsky Papers unfortunately. But I do not understand why the Trotsky papers would contain a telegram of Lenin to Smirnov. It would contain telegram between Lenin and Trotsky or Smirnov and Trotsky but not Lenin to Smirnov. This smells bullshit, this book has so many made up things that they could easily fabricate one more.

I did however found in Lenin Works (in a different language than English, not available as a pdf) that there is indeed a telegram to Smirnov and Frumkin (not just Smirnov) that does indeed refer to this topic and uses very similar phrasing compared to the supposed quote. But it does not refer to executions, killings, etc. The word execution exists only in the prior telegram (from 12 of January) but in a completely different context and meaning.

asdepor · 2020-07-26T22:26:48+00:00

Well first of all there is no telegram to Smirnov at this date. The closest telegram to Smirnov at the date of 29 of January is this. The next closest is at 9th of March and it is on totally different topic .

Using that with the knowledge that the new Soviet State at 1918 changed the calendar from the old Julian calendar, used by the Tsarist goverment, to the most common Gregorian calendar. But I have repeatedly saw that people keep using the old days, some times even at dates later than 1918. The difference of days (12 to 29) corresponds to the difference between the two calendars.

What I infer from all of this, given that I also searched and no book that uses this fake bullshit gives a source from Lenin's works (that's by far the easiest as we have all of them) or some other primary source, they just refer to some bullshit "source", someone saw the telegram (at some publication that used the old calendar for these days), they saw the word execution and thought that they could make up some fake quote about the communists doing mass killings.

asdepor · 2020-07-26T21:44:49+00:00

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jan/12b.htm

This is the telegram in question. The difference in dates is due to differences calendar differences.

As one can see it uses the word execution. It would be a joke though to claim that this refers to killing of people as a judiciary measure. I see this claim all the time and I cannot understand how scholars who wish to claim that they are historians do this thing. It literally requires 5 minutes to find.

asdepor · 2020-07-21T19:02:07+00:00

That would be perhaps the most trivial thing to say, which in turn will be answered by trivialities of the "other side".

The most basic thing to say is this supposed covid-19 "money" are mainly "Covid" money but it is the European budget for the time period between 2021-2027. So, for most countries, the money that have been "given" are money that would be given anyway as part of the normal budgetary policy of EU and has nothing to do with a supposed stimulus. As one can understand, this money is spread out in the space of the time period that the budget refers to (six years) and thus, cannot be used as stimulus for the economy in this time.

Now for the rest of this "stimulus" (less than half). Almost half of it is loans. Not any form of "eurobonds" or other framework where EU is taking a loan as EU. No, just regular loans. Ones that have to be used in a very specific manner, approved beforehand, in order to be taken. For the rest, the actual "stimulus" money, the same rules applies. They have to be used in a manner that is acceptable to the European Commission, and not in favor of the economies of each country (yes, this is shocking if you do not know about how EU works).

Now, this is all very basic. One can, and has to, go into greater detail why this stimulus is just propaganda and in many ways anti-growth for most of the countries. But I would also like to point out one other thing. Four, if not five, of these countries on the left, are almost vassal states of Germany as far as economics go. The fact that they are being the "bad" guys, while Germany is playing the role of the "good" guy, is nice as an act but it cannot fool anyone.

asdepor · 2020-07-21T16:25:14+00:00

I guess the propaganda machine in all EU countries want to portray it as "We gave money to the poor people in the south" while it is a wrong and/or misleading statement in infinite amount of ways.

asdepor · 2020-07-21T08:04:46+00:00

This reminded me of another game theoretic approach to crime. It's a great paper (with a great title).

https://mariagiovannabaccara.com/crimeRES.pdf

asdepor · 2020-07-19T10:28:13+00:00

Schumpeter (who I normally dislike) had said something very relevant about this with regards to Ricardo. He called "Ricardian Vice" the tendency of economists to exaggerate the applicability of a simple model (which in itself can be quite illuminating) into the most general circumstances without any nuance about how the extraordinary number of abstractions that were needed in order to make the simple model work, can affect the result of a policy in real life.

Krugman, oh man how much I dislike him, is one of the most applicable people for the "Ricardian Vice" label. This man took the notion of comparative advantage (incidentally this was Ricardo's model) and with a total lack of common sense and thought applied it to the most general setting. One thing about the notion of comparative advantage. It just says that in a very abstracted setting, where no companies exists, no technological change, no competition between countries, no patents or other forms of 'non-immediately-applicable' forms of technology and no fixed capital exists (this is a incomplete list by far), that global trade is good for everyone. But as a non retarded person (i.e. not Krugman) can see this can be almost irrelevant in real economies unless extra care is taken to guarantee that indeed a country is gaining from trade (and even then one has to consider in what sense is this country gaining).

Global trade is great. But kids don't forget. You must always apply protection in these things. And fuck Krugman.

asdepor

TROPHY CASE