Why Don”t We Teach Marxist Economics Except in Sociology, Philosophy and Literature? https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/why-dont-we-teach-marxist-economics-except-in-sociology-philosophy-and-literature/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:41:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267451255263318017
Why Don”t We Teach Marxist Economics Except in Sociology, Philosophy and Literature? https://t.co/pc0kcPVhpE
WHY DON”T WE TEACH MARXIST ECONOMICS EXCEPT IN SOCIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE?
—“No one teaches Marxism in economics….” vitiates any merits there may be to your rather prosaic submission 🤔”— Jason Tutu
Find me some university economics department that teaches marxist economics. They may teach a touch of marx in the history of economic thought. They don’t teach it at all. IN fact I don’t know any economics department that teaches anything other than mainstream (keynesian, saltwater) thought, albeit with some nod to chicago and at least in the best, some nod to austrian (mengerian). That’s because the labor theory of value is clearly false, economic calculation and coordination is impossible, and incentives are impossible, and every attempt at marxism whether fast failure (communism), medium failure (authoritarian socialism), or slow failure (democratic socialism) has failed, for not just one of the three reasons, but for ALL three reasons. And it cannot be otherwise. Why? Because in the end it violates the laws of physics, violates human moral intuition, which is bound by the laws of physics and therefore reflects them, and because there are limits to the debt-credit of human intuition and memory that make it possible for us to shift time between us so that we can obtain the outsized returns on cooperation, within those laws of physics. There are few people on this planet whounderstand these subjects as well as I do and if you manage to capture the attention of one of us and actually respond to you, its wise counsel to read and understand what is being said to you. I do this for a living online because the public functions not just as my classroom but because of my method by teaching using king of the hill games, the public also serves as my test subjects. Affections. Curt
WHY DON”T WE TEACH MARXIST ECONOMICS EXCEPT IN SOCIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE?
—“No one teaches Marxism in economics….” vitiates any merits there may be to your rather prosaic submission 🤔”— Jason Tutu
Find me some university economics department that teaches marxist economics. They may teach a touch of marx in the history of economic thought. They don’t teach it at all. IN fact I don’t know any economics department that teaches anything other than mainstream (keynesian, saltwater) thought, albeit with some nod to chicago and at least in the best, some nod to austrian (mengerian). That’s because the labor theory of value is clearly false, economic calculation and coordination is impossible, and incentives are impossible, and every attempt at marxism whether fast failure (communism), medium failure (authoritarian socialism), or slow failure (democratic socialism) has failed, for not just one of the three reasons, but for ALL three reasons. And it cannot be otherwise. Why? Because in the end it violates the laws of physics, violates human moral intuition, which is bound by the laws of physics and therefore reflects them, and because there are limits to the debt-credit of human intuition and memory that make it possible for us to shift time between us so that we can obtain the outsized returns on cooperation, within those laws of physics. There are few people on this planet whounderstand these subjects as well as I do and if you manage to capture the attention of one of us and actually respond to you, its wise counsel to read and understand what is being said to you. I do this for a living online because the public functions not just as my classroom but because of my method by teaching using king of the hill games, the public also serves as my test subjects. Affections. Curt
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:41:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267451135964647430
—“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income’.”— Tutu
Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (b) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (c) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, and restore the communalism of the herd, which is the feminine cognitive bias, that appears to separate semitic from european thought, in metaphysical, preferable, intuitionistic, and argumentative methods, including the use of feminine means of conflcit: false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from the hazard, plausible deniability as pretense of moral cover, using pilpul (sophism) critique(undermining), in a continuous effort to prevent dominant males from organizing a hierarchy, which would cause loyalty gains, asymmetrically more influential than feminine demands for consumption in exchange for sex, affection, and ingroup advocacy.
—“The most obvious sophism in the above post, is : ‘Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income’.”— Tutu
Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (b) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (c) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating. Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, and restore the communalism of the herd, which is the feminine cognitive bias, that appears to separate semitic from european thought, in metaphysical, preferable, intuitionistic, and argumentative methods, including the use of feminine means of conflcit: false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from the hazard, plausible deniability as pretense of moral cover, using pilpul (sophism) critique(undermining), in a continuous effort to prevent dominant males from organizing a hierarchy, which would cause loyalty gains, asymmetrically more influential than feminine demands for consumption in exchange for sex, affection, and ingroup advocacy.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:35:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267449814867902466