I love the fact that you have videos connected to the Theoretical magazine ("TMF" in Swedish). It makes it much easier when discussing with "contacts" and/or as a compliment when you read the article. I've been a member since 2018 and I've seen a huge improvement in the quality of videos and a general quantitative increase of good material and analysis from the international center. Greetings from IMT Revolution Sverige.
@matthewapsey4869 "Without prices that emerge from trading, it is impossible to know the relative values of resources". You obviously didn´t even watch the freaking video. Comparing "2 + 2 = 4" to "The invisible hand of the market" and completely ignoring a rational way of determining value like The Labor Theory of Value.
@matthewapsey4869 Aparently you are the joke. Good luck triving in your meritocracy while you lick the balls of billionaires and earn 1/100 of what you produce to your boss.
@@SrIceCream The labor theory of value is so debunked that you have to be a moron to use it today. A hole that takes 1 year to dig is not more valuable than the same hole dug with a backhoe in a day. Labor's value is determined by the output of that labor, not by the labor itself.
@@novinceinhosic3531 I would tell you to go read but it is obvious you have no ability to comprehend. Only people with 0 intellectual capacity would ever tell people to read that ideobabble.
Note the immediate disclosure of calling all objectors trolls. Then the chain the Venezuela is better in terms of access to food and other goods is even less honest.
But the ecp calculation has been disproved and therefore is either disingenuis, or misinformed. I respect your seeking of the 'other sides' reasoning. I hope youd consider reading the peoples republic of wallmart
There are some problems with this video, firstly, making accusations that the Austrians are simply Neo-Classical economists is a bit flawed. Austrians make no such assumptions that man exists in a state of homo economicus, or that they're perpetually calculating everything continually in their heads and hence, "acting rationally". This becomes more ironic, when you actually begin to cite Lange and the other Market Socialists, who did nothing but apply standard Neo-Classical price theory, and called it a day. Austrian Economists, especially Don Lavoie have pointed out that the debate was never about static equilibrium, but rather dynamic equilibrium. With static equilibrium, you can actually assume homo economicus, coupled with the Neo-Classical perception of an auctioneer simply calling out prices as a given, of course you have a formula for something wrong. This is the problem, Lange made so many unrealistic assumptions in his theorem, and fundamentally missed the point of what Mises and Hayek were trying to talk about. This is the only way you can justify any sort of, "argument" against the ECP. Like Kantorovich resorting to Neo-Classical economics, and slapping Socialism on the label. Pathetic video
The first example of market failure of course corresponded to Price's Law of Socialist Examples. This law states that examples societies give of market failure well be examples of government failures and usually in the midst regulated industries.
I love when people call laws, stuff that is not a law in any scientific sense. Also, market is regulated exactly because it creates socially undesirable outcomes and cannot exist without regulations. So obvious market failour happen in such a context since any other context is impossible.
I enjoy all the butt hurt Austrian cranks whining in the comment section. Never forget, Austrian economics is the astrology of economics, nobody takes it seriously unless you're some billionaire funded think tank.
Communism is a failed strategy and theory, evidence clearly lies in its results and failure to abolish class and the state, markets and money. Don't forget, Marxian economics is the flat earth thoery of economics.
@TheWizardGamez Its ignored by academia because its nonsense. You're like a creationist claiming that your ideas are ignored because of some conspiracy.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 No, Keynesian economics is the astrology of economics. It requires faith that the money flowing is the proponent of economics instead of the consumers and their desires. Marxists are just stupid people who believe they are smart. The ultimate proposition of stupidity and faith. This is why Marxists always have to cry about it not being real Socialism/Communism/Marxism. The ideas can never be tested so they remain eternally true.
Socially necessary labor time is in correspondence to the wishes of consumers, i.e ultimately it is the most demanded goods on the market which would have increased labor time as capital pours into those industries from less profitable sectors. The labor theory of value is a description of this process, it is not an ontological description of reality as opposed to subjective valuation which drives human action which in turn dictates socially necessary labor time.
@Socially necessary labor determines the value of the goods. Okay, but what labor will be Socially necessary? @labor that generates use value of course. Circular
Any appearance of market efficiency and scalability is thrown out the window once you modify the corresponding models to properly take into account the non-omniscience of participating agents, especially if you introduce a dependence relation on their utility functions or require that a certain vector should be a component of any vector assigned to any of the buyers. The more real world assumptions you introduce, the more the extreme inefficiency of any actually existing market comes to the fore.
Austrians make no such assumptions, those are the formalists of the Neo-Classical tradition, the market and the institutions that arose organically exist BECAUSE man is not homo economicus like you said
The economic calculation problem never assumes pareto efficiency, it’s meant to reveal the underlying allocative dynamics of markets operating in a disequilibriated world. Austrian economics utilizes realist assumptions in contrast to the non-realist assumptions used by most economic approaches which legitimately take cardinal utility functions seriously
The Great Depression is not an example of the free market. Principally because 1. The monetary supply had been distorted especially by those socialists countries prime example being Weimar Germany. 2. Because of the interventions that had only extended the effects of the crisis. Such as the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations price fixing, the Hoover administration not allowing the liquidation of firms and freedom of the labour market to adjust. What could’ve been a 6-8 month slow down turned into a decade of pain. It was principally government interference with the economy though the printing of money and artificial and arbitrary setting of interest rates that had caused such huge misallocation in the economy.
"subjective theory of value, subjective theory of value" - Rightist Murdoch. P.S. By the way, non-knee-jerk libertarians are unlikely to oppose voluntary unionization. #AustrogeolibertarianBias #FreedomOfContract
The main factors which will enable any western industrial society to thrive are; self-sufficiency, total sovereignty, conservation of tradition, religion, and culture (that includes patriarchy), strict (but just) laws, strict border controll, prohibition of any organisation/religion/media which undermine any of these factors. A communist economy could work, a capitalist economy could work, but a mix would probably be best (mixed economy)
Both capitalist and communist economies have been tried; communism did work to a certain degree, but was usually hampered by inefficiency, waste and corruption at the top- as well as a very limited amount of personal freedom for the individuals within it. The more freedom they have, the harder 'planning' becomes. As for the mixed-economy you mentioned, which industries and services would be best-run by the government?
@@lochnessmunster1189 These are the most important services in any country and should be operated by the state for stability,economic,efficiency reasons
As a business owner I know what would happen if I left my workers to their own devices for one month. Day one would be a slow down,1st week would be one big coffee break,2nd week they would punch in and go home,then my inventory would disappear etc. Business owners provide the jobs,the capital to pay workers in slow periods,take all the risks,the stress of failure etc etc. Go start your own business if you think your being exploited😂😂😂😂 99% of you would fail the other 1% attend or speak at communist symposiums 😂😂😂😂😂
@@unusualbug1113 ok thanks. I am really forcing my self to imagining how you came with that respond. In theory it sounds possible. I will give it more thought.
I mean marginal utility theory is not “subjectivist and idealist” as you understand it. The difference between objective and subjective is not the difference between the collective and individual. It’s the ontological conception of whether X commodity has an inherent value or a purely subjective and constructed value, in advanced economies. I don’t think the speaker understands the labour theory of value himself - having an “objective” market price on Amazon doesn’t debunk or affirm the LTV or a more social-value oriented theory. - Also Marx has a more “great teleology” sense of history than any liberal or bourgeois economist. The biggest traditional problem in marxist thought is the tension between materialism and ethical teleology which supposedly inevitably results in communism. This Channel is really becoming a joke in terms of academic output
What are you even talking about? There is no empirical basis for marginal utility, it’s an unproven assumption that is based on religious belief, it doesn’t even account for the trillions spent in shaping consumer behaviour, branding, cultural hegemony and so on.
@@elufo2321 Marx's theory that profit is made by underpaying employees. He didn't understand the effects that an employer's additional input has on the productivity of an employee.
@@yorkshiremgtow1773 Your interpretation is my first question I ask. How do we convince the middle class. I think is what Marx couldn't figured. All of his writing explains the class divisio of the profiteer vs the worker. Any inputs from management is for frofits and the workers always pay with their labor. Workers are always given less from like a soldier that dies in war. The prince expende lots money on military equipment but who dies. Who works for the return and who makes the profits. Marx failure was that he could not explain it to the middle class but the corporate class understood the repercusión.
@@elufo2321 Well, let's say I'm a busker on a street-corner, earning $10 an hour with my guitar. You're a bar-owner, and you think that hiring me to play there, might increase your drinks-revenue. How would you be able to 'exploit' my labor?
Central Planning is hierarchical. I believe in human equality. Markets have no inherent hierarchy. Sure some players might accumulate more wealth and therefore receive an outsized influence on the market, but redistribution can easily manage that without out the need for hierarchy. And while yes, players within the market can have hierarchies inside their organizations, we can actually curb that as well by injecting markets inside of our businesses. Meaning the economy is non-hierarchical all the way down. Finally we can make our government non-hierarchical as well through direct democracy modeled after open sources software for the legislative branch, and privatization of agencies for the executive branch. Note: Privatization of executive agencies sounds bad to anyone to the Left of Mitt Romney, but in a scenario where the privatized agencies are non-hierarchical, non-profit, and paid for via single payer it’s actually awesome.
Labor theory value, wants to make all communists believe that a porcelain cup with a svastika has more value than a plastic cup with Karl Marx's face. Lenin used fascist economy called NEP, the same one that China is using today because Deng Xiaoping was Bukharin's student who not only supported NEP but fascist countries for the same reasons. Do you realize that you call NEP a socialist economy ? It is like calling China a socialist country. these confusions happening because you don't know the three different type of economic systems. - capitalism where people can invest their money in any political party or product they want - fascism where people are not allowed to invest their money on any other political party except the one in power but they can invest in any product they want.. - socialism (aka palace economy from bronze age) where people are not allowed to have money to invest Not only that, but saying that a worker's democracy will replace the price signals without an open source digital platform means that you don't know how the process will work, how the workers will decide ... your wish to bring a fascist economy like NEP until worker's democracy will come is like saying to do evil things to go to paradise. Prove that worker's democracy can exist through an open source digital platform. Create the software and we will test it through simulations. If it is better than capitalism, then we will vote you through current democracy (or even better workers will create their own companies in capitalist society using this software)
“The liberal economists fought for the ruling class and Marx fought for the working class!” Bruh. Don’t you get tired of this kind of marvel conception of good/bad politics. I’m a marxist too but what is this reductionism 💀
@@alienbacterium8518 Clearly there is a moral equivalence being made here though. The idea that Marx was not just a social actor, but somehow a specifically moral one - if there is no good/bad conception, then why are we ethically obliged to participate in revolutionary politics altogether? Ofc, this is the general contradiction within Marxist ethics proper, which many have written about, the call on one hand to engage in motivated revolutionary action, and yet the lack of any kind of ethical structure by which it would make sense to engage in such action or to justify it (why am I obliged to engage in some dialectical process, other than for ethical reasons?). I agree there is no good/bad conception in Marxism, but that does not deny my main point, that Marxists understand the working class = bourgosie (however you spell it) split in specifically moral terms. I mean that's what the speaker is doing too, it's a kind of semantic trick that seems intuitively correct but contradicts Marxist materialsim at it's core. Also I dont understand how the austrian school would be pseudo-science but Marxism's scientific claims are not? Marxism assumes economics is a natural order/system with specific mechanistic functions and laws we can trace, that economics essentially has a teleological dimension trending towards socialism (with no scientific justification or substantiation of this)>
@@fahim-ev8qq It seems right,...you are agree that its not good/bad .. but you still says that it contradicts Marxism? You are not making a point here. Marx tried to apply the knowlege of his time for that reason it is science Mises denied the utility of scientific method. praxeology is pseudo science.
@@alienbacterium8518 Applying the knowledge of your time isn't science. Science refers to the use of the scientific method as an empirical tool to derive knowledge about the world and supposedly "natural laws". You'll notice this already requires a massive set of unsubstantiated metaphysical assertions (empiricism grants us valid knowledge, that there are natural laws and objective truths to reach etc). Beyond that however, nothing Marx undertook was "scientific". I am not arguing for Mises and praxeology. I'm saying Marxism is in no way "scientific" - unless you can show some way in which it is ?
I love the fact that you have videos connected to the Theoretical magazine ("TMF" in Swedish). It makes it much easier when discussing with "contacts" and/or as a compliment when you read the article.
I've been a member since 2018 and I've seen a huge improvement in the quality of videos and a general quantitative increase of good material and analysis from the international center.
Greetings from IMT Revolution Sverige.
ECP ECP!!
The self-confirming prophecy got realized lmao
@@turtlecraft7996 They are joking.
@@sjewitt22 ECP! ECP!!!
Great video!
This is the best refutation of the ECP I've heard yet! Thank you comrade!
He didn't even know the proper definition of the ECP, how can you refute something when you don't even know the proper definition?
@matthewapsey4869 "Without prices that emerge from trading, it is impossible to know the relative values of resources". You obviously didn´t even watch the freaking video. Comparing "2 + 2 = 4" to "The invisible hand of the market" and completely ignoring a rational way of determining value like The Labor Theory of Value.
@matthewapsey4869 Aparently you are the joke. Good luck triving in your meritocracy while you lick the balls of billionaires and earn 1/100 of what you produce to your boss.
@@SrIceCream The labor theory of value is so debunked that you have to be a moron to use it today. A hole that takes 1 year to dig is not more valuable than the same hole dug with a backhoe in a day. Labor's value is determined by the output of that labor, not by the labor itself.
@@novinceinhosic3531 I would tell you to go read but it is obvious you have no ability to comprehend. Only people with 0 intellectual capacity would ever tell people to read that ideobabble.
the ECP is not correctly defined here. The key aspect is prices. Without prices central planning is impossible
Note the immediate disclosure of calling all objectors trolls.
Then the chain the Venezuela is better in terms of access to food and other goods is even less honest.
But the ecp calculation has been disproved and therefore is either disingenuis, or misinformed.
I respect your seeking of the 'other sides' reasoning. I hope youd consider reading the peoples republic of wallmart
Very good video
There are some problems with this video, firstly, making accusations that the Austrians are simply Neo-Classical economists is a bit flawed. Austrians make no such assumptions that man exists in a state of homo economicus, or that they're perpetually calculating everything continually in their heads and hence, "acting rationally".
This becomes more ironic, when you actually begin to cite Lange and the other Market Socialists, who did nothing but apply standard Neo-Classical price theory, and called it a day.
Austrian Economists, especially Don Lavoie have pointed out that the debate was never about static equilibrium, but rather dynamic equilibrium. With static equilibrium, you can actually assume homo economicus, coupled with the Neo-Classical perception of an auctioneer simply calling out prices as a given, of course you have a formula for something wrong.
This is the problem, Lange made so many unrealistic assumptions in his theorem, and fundamentally missed the point of what Mises and Hayek were trying to talk about. This is the only way you can justify any sort of, "argument" against the ECP. Like Kantorovich resorting to Neo-Classical economics, and slapping Socialism on the label. Pathetic video
The first example of market failure of course corresponded to Price's Law of Socialist Examples. This law states that examples societies give of market failure well be examples of government failures and usually in the midst regulated industries.
I love when people call laws, stuff that is not a law in any scientific sense. Also, market is regulated exactly because it creates socially undesirable outcomes and cannot exist without regulations. So obvious market failour happen in such a context since any other context is impossible.
Awesome work comrade
I enjoy all the butt hurt Austrian cranks whining in the comment section. Never forget, Austrian economics is the astrology of economics, nobody takes it seriously unless you're some billionaire funded think tank.
Communism is a failed strategy and theory, evidence clearly lies in its results and failure to abolish class and the state, markets and money. Don't forget, Marxian economics is the flat earth thoery of economics.
Austrian economics is ignored by the government because it tells them to spend less.
@TheWizardGamez Its ignored by academia because its nonsense. You're like a creationist claiming that your ideas are ignored because of some conspiracy.
@@orphaotheseeker2770 No, Keynesian economics is the astrology of economics. It requires faith that the money flowing is the proponent of economics instead of the consumers and their desires. Marxists are just stupid people who believe they are smart. The ultimate proposition of stupidity and faith. This is why Marxists always have to cry about it not being real Socialism/Communism/Marxism. The ideas can never be tested so they remain eternally true.
Ironic coming from a marxist...
Nice. More to listen to when i’m driving.
Red salute to Comrades
I hope they have good times with struggle
Socially necessary labor time is in correspondence to the wishes of consumers, i.e ultimately it is the most demanded goods on the market which would have increased labor time as capital pours into those industries from less profitable sectors. The labor theory of value is a description of this process, it is not an ontological description of reality as opposed to subjective valuation which drives human action which in turn dictates socially necessary labor time.
@Socially necessary labor determines the value of the goods.
Okay, but what labor will be Socially necessary?
@labor that generates use value of course.
Circular
Exactly. It is impossible to say which labor is 'socially necessary' and which isn't.
@@lochnessmunster1189 without adopting subjective theory of value that is.
@@zigoter2185 Yes, but even if you adopt this, can it be determined which is, and which isn't, socially necessary?
Marxist theory of value see the use value as the basis of the exchange value.
@@lochnessmunster1189 you don't really need that socially necessary stuff it subjective theory of value.
Any appearance of market efficiency and scalability is thrown out the window once you modify the corresponding models to properly take into account the non-omniscience of participating agents, especially if you introduce a dependence relation on their utility functions or require that a certain vector should be a component of any vector assigned to any of the buyers. The more real world assumptions you introduce, the more the extreme inefficiency of any actually existing market comes to the fore.
you meowmeowzel just bodied commie cap't americas before pic
Austrians make no such assumptions, those are the formalists of the Neo-Classical tradition, the market and the institutions that arose organically exist BECAUSE man is not homo economicus like you said
The economic calculation problem never assumes pareto efficiency, it’s meant to reveal the underlying allocative dynamics of markets operating in a disequilibriated world. Austrian economics utilizes realist assumptions in contrast to the non-realist assumptions used by most economic approaches which legitimately take cardinal utility functions seriously
Can't wait to watch this vid
>Austrian economics
>Mathematical models
No, I can't watch this, sorry...
cope and seethe
The Great Depression is not an example of the free market. Principally because
1. The monetary supply had been distorted especially by those socialists countries prime example being Weimar Germany.
2. Because of the interventions that had only extended the effects of the crisis. Such as the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations price fixing, the Hoover administration not allowing the liquidation of firms and freedom of the labour market to adjust. What could’ve been a 6-8 month slow down turned into a decade of pain.
It was principally government interference with the economy though the printing of money and artificial and arbitrary setting of interest rates that had caused such huge misallocation in the economy.
my libertarian friend is upset that the Austrian school was supposedly not sufficiently studied or understood here
Care to elaborate?
@@BabyGreen162 the austrian school has explanations for failures of the boris johnson government has other than “capitalism bad”
"subjective theory of value, subjective theory of value" - Rightist Murdoch.
P.S. By the way, non-knee-jerk libertarians are unlikely to oppose voluntary unionization. #AustrogeolibertarianBias #FreedomOfContract
The main factors which will enable any western industrial society to thrive are; self-sufficiency, total sovereignty, conservation of tradition, religion, and culture (that includes patriarchy), strict (but just) laws, strict border controll, prohibition of any organisation/religion/media which undermine any of these factors. A communist economy could work, a capitalist economy could work, but a mix would probably be best (mixed economy)
Both capitalist and communist economies have been tried; communism did work to a certain degree, but was usually hampered by inefficiency, waste and corruption at the top- as well as a very limited amount of personal freedom for the individuals within it. The more freedom they have, the harder 'planning' becomes. As for the mixed-economy you mentioned, which industries and services would be best-run by the government?
@@lochnessmunster1189 power,transport,health,education,media
@@khole15 Why those things in particular?
@@lochnessmunster1189 These are the most important services in any country and should be operated by the state for stability,economic,efficiency reasons
@@khole15 So, State Monopolies?
As a business owner I know what would happen if I left my workers to their own devices for one month. Day one would be a slow down,1st week would be one big coffee break,2nd week they would punch in and go home,then my inventory would disappear etc. Business owners provide the jobs,the capital to pay workers in slow periods,take all the risks,the stress of failure etc etc. Go start your own business if you think your being exploited😂😂😂😂 99% of you would fail the other 1% attend or speak at communist symposiums 😂😂😂😂😂
The speaker does not know what capitalism is, nor what a free market is, and especially not what libertarians are.
Lol
He knows it better than any libertarian bozo :)
What is capitalism. Is it the same as the "free market". Uh??
@@unusualbug1113 ok thanks. I am really forcing my self to imagining how you came with that respond. In theory it sounds possible. I will give it more thought.
czcams.com/video/zkPGfTEZ_r4/video.html
Also to not even know who bawerk and menger are and then try to ridicule them as chuds or ruling class-apologists is also sad.
I mean marginal utility theory is not “subjectivist and idealist” as you understand it. The difference between objective and subjective is not the difference between the collective and individual. It’s the ontological conception of whether X commodity has an inherent value or a purely subjective and constructed value, in advanced economies.
I don’t think the speaker understands the labour theory of value himself - having an “objective” market price on Amazon doesn’t debunk or affirm the LTV or a more social-value oriented theory.
-
Also Marx has a more “great teleology” sense of history than any liberal or bourgeois economist. The biggest traditional problem in marxist thought is the tension between materialism and ethical teleology which supposedly inevitably results in communism. This Channel is really becoming a joke in terms of academic output
What are you even talking about? There is no empirical basis for marginal utility, it’s an unproven assumption that is based on religious belief, it doesn’t even account for the trillions spent in shaping consumer behaviour, branding, cultural hegemony and so on.
How are u going to market these ides to Middle class peasants. Great talk.
It's not a great talk, because it's still founded on the basis that Marxist theory is entirely correct. It isn't.
@@yorkshiremgtow1773 what is incorrect about capital. Please don't make an empty gestures like a capitalist
@@elufo2321 Marx's theory that profit is made by underpaying employees. He didn't understand the effects that an employer's additional input has on the productivity of an employee.
@@yorkshiremgtow1773 Your interpretation is my first question I ask. How do we convince the middle class. I think is what Marx couldn't figured. All of his writing explains the class divisio of the profiteer vs the worker. Any inputs from management is for frofits and the workers always pay with their labor. Workers are always given less from like a soldier that dies in war. The prince expende lots money on military equipment but who dies. Who works for the return and who makes the profits. Marx failure was that he could not explain it to the middle class but the corporate class understood the repercusión.
@@elufo2321 Well, let's say I'm a busker on a street-corner, earning $10 an hour with my guitar. You're a bar-owner, and you think that hiring me to play there, might increase your drinks-revenue. How would you be able to 'exploit' my labor?
Central Planning is hierarchical. I believe in human equality. Markets have no inherent hierarchy. Sure some players might accumulate more wealth and therefore receive an outsized influence on the market, but redistribution can easily manage that without out the need for hierarchy.
And while yes, players within the market can have hierarchies inside their organizations, we can actually curb that as well by injecting markets inside of our businesses. Meaning the economy is non-hierarchical all the way down.
Finally we can make our government non-hierarchical as well through direct democracy modeled after open sources software for the legislative branch, and privatization of agencies for the executive branch.
Note: Privatization of executive agencies sounds bad to anyone to the Left of Mitt Romney, but in a scenario where the privatized agencies are non-hierarchical, non-profit, and paid for via single payer it’s actually awesome.
Labor theory value, wants to make all communists believe that a porcelain cup with a svastika has more value than a plastic cup with Karl Marx's face.
Lenin used fascist economy called NEP, the same one that China is using today because Deng Xiaoping was Bukharin's student who not only supported NEP but fascist countries for the same reasons.
Do you realize that you call NEP a socialist economy ? It is like calling China a socialist country.
these confusions happening because you don't know the three different type of economic systems.
- capitalism where people can invest their money in any political party or product they want
- fascism where people are not allowed to invest their money on any other political party except the one in power but they can invest in any product they want..
- socialism (aka palace economy from bronze age) where people are not allowed to have money to invest
Not only that, but saying that a worker's democracy will replace the price signals without an open source digital platform means that you don't know how the process will work, how the workers will decide ... your wish to bring a fascist economy like NEP until worker's democracy will come is like saying to do evil things to go to paradise.
Prove that worker's democracy can exist through an open source digital platform. Create the software and we will test it through simulations.
If it is better than capitalism, then we will vote you through current democracy (or even better workers will create their own companies in capitalist society using this software)
“The liberal economists fought for the ruling class and Marx fought for the working class!” Bruh. Don’t you get tired of this kind of marvel conception of good/bad politics. I’m a marxist too but what is this reductionism 💀
There is not good / bad conception in the marxism. There is not any science in the seudo libertarian creed. Austrian school is a seudo science.
Bruh you just ain't a marxist.
@@alienbacterium8518 Clearly there is a moral equivalence being made here though. The idea that Marx was not just a social actor, but somehow a specifically moral one - if there is no good/bad conception, then why are we ethically obliged to participate in revolutionary politics altogether? Ofc, this is the general contradiction within Marxist ethics proper, which many have written about, the call on one hand to engage in motivated revolutionary action, and yet the lack of any kind of ethical structure by which it would make sense to engage in such action or to justify it (why am I obliged to engage in some dialectical process, other than for ethical reasons?). I agree there is no good/bad conception in Marxism, but that does not deny my main point, that Marxists understand the working class = bourgosie (however you spell it) split in specifically moral terms. I mean that's what the speaker is doing too, it's a kind of semantic trick that seems intuitively correct but contradicts Marxist materialsim at it's core. Also I dont understand how the austrian school would be pseudo-science but Marxism's scientific claims are not? Marxism assumes economics is a natural order/system with specific mechanistic functions and laws we can trace, that economics essentially has a teleological dimension trending towards socialism (with no scientific justification or substantiation of this)>
@@fahim-ev8qq
It seems right,...you are agree that its not good/bad .. but you still says that it contradicts Marxism? You are not making a point here.
Marx tried to apply the knowlege of his time for that reason it is science
Mises denied the utility of scientific method. praxeology is pseudo science.
@@alienbacterium8518 Applying the knowledge of your time isn't science. Science refers to the use of the scientific method as an empirical tool to derive knowledge about the world and supposedly "natural laws". You'll notice this already requires a massive set of unsubstantiated metaphysical assertions (empiricism grants us valid knowledge, that there are natural laws and objective truths to reach etc). Beyond that however, nothing Marx undertook was "scientific". I am not arguing for Mises and praxeology. I'm saying Marxism is in no way "scientific" - unless you can show some way in which it is ?