@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde wasn't really expecting to run into tankies in this comment section. I'm like 95% sure OP agrees with me here https://mastodon.social/@mutual_ayyde/109922767436649768

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde Touché but no I'm not a Marxists. I don't think it's respectful to devalue their efforts though but I suppose you are right if just taken literally.

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde We may disagree on certain issues, but I have enormous respect for left-wing thinkers who have taken aspects of Marx (+other early communists)'s critiques of capitalism and combined them with microeconomic critiques of centrally planned economies, and created something entirely new in the various flavors of LWMA.

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde Modern-day true Marxists are almost invariably tankies, and I view tankies the same way I view Nazis. Zero sympathy for people who do genocide.

Also recognize that there are a bunch of people who identify as Marxists mostly because they are on the left wing and don't know any better. I don't think it's rude to say they haven't thought very much about it, because the alternative is to believe they are tankies.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde I'm with you until the last sentence. I do think it's disrespectful to say they haven't thought very much about it not least because it's false. Do you really think Ptolemaic astronomers and Aristotelian physicists didn't think very hard about problems just because they "failed"?

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde If I met a Ptolemaic astronomer or Aristotelian physicist in the 20th century, *and they persisted in those views after being presented with modern physics*, I would say they didn't think very hard about it. And if after living for decades in the 20th century they somehow never encountered modern physics, I would have a hard time believing they were thinking about it very hard either, because any sort of inquiry would point them in the right direction.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde

I suppose that's one way to not answer the question. And...

Ah yes, neoclassical economics, that branch of "science" known for its predictive power rivaling that only of quantum mechanics. That great branch of thinking based on a set of assumptions that are known to be and admitted to be literally false by its very founders! Paid by and for no less than those very same people whose interests it serves and which it praises so highly!

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde

Is the following respectful?

If I met a theist in the 20th century, *and they persisted in those views after being presented with modern physics*, I would say they didn't think very hard about it. And if after living for decades in the 20th century they somehow never encountered modern physics, I would have a hard time believing they were thinking about it very hard either, because any sort of inquiry would point them in the right direction.

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde Which modern physics results are you referring to, specifically?

(before we go too far down this road, I have a physics degree)

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde

Answer the question. Was the text respectful or was it not?

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde it's not disrespectful, it's just nonsensical because you're talking about unrelated fields.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde

You don't think it's disrespectful of me to say that you obviously haven't thought about it enough or else you wouldn't have come to that conclusion? That you must have spent zero intellectual energy on this or else you wouldn't still believe something that's false?

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde that's a perfectly reasonable category of opinion to hold. If you fill in the blanks s.t. it describes a situation where X old theory has _actually_ been disproved by Y new theory, I would be more offended if you thought I had thought about it and reached the wrong conclusion. If you fill in the blanks s.t. you're describing unrelated X and Y, it doesn't make it more offensive, it just tells me *you* haven't thought about it enough.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde You're obviously intentionally missing the point now. The positions themselves are wholly irrelevant. It is your manner of speaking that I'm criticizing. Whether God exists isn't even falsifiable and you can have your God of the gaps if you want, but that we cannot agree on a notion of respect means that we ought to end it here, potentially permanently.

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde I try to:
(a) assume that people are intelligent and can reach common conclusions deductively when arguing from an agreed upon set of presuppositions, or inductively when arguing based on an agreed upon notion of uncertainty+confidence
(b) assume that people are engaging in good faith / with the intent of reaching a shared understanding.
(c) avoid assuming that everyone has to have a strongly held opinion on every topic.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde (d) assume people who are wrong or who you disagree with don't think or put effort into things

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde I have no idea what you're talking about now. Quantum mechanics has enormous predictive power (if it didn't nobody would have ever believed in it because it's too weird). We wouldn't be able to build semiconductor based computers without it.

And nobody said anything about neoclassical econ - macro-econ in general is just astrology for social scientists. Modern *micro* economics is foundational computer science.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde

Yes, obviously QM is literally the most predictive of any theory that isn't trivial. That was my point.

People don't practice ancient physics because there are better theories. Astrology for social scientists doesn't convert many people away from Marxism because it's literally worse. A theory that wasn't horseshit probably would have some impact

Anyway, this is way off track. Regardless of whether they spin their wheels or not, it's energy.

@apodoxus @elfprince13 1) there's a bunch of socialists who were involved in the formulation of neoclassical econ or who found it useful, Bockman's Markets in the Name of Socialism covers this in detail

2) Marx brushes off computational limits again and again and again. I can give you plenty of pull quotes showing this. This is a serious problem and for as flawed as they are, Austrian econ did actually try to rigorously think about these limits

@mutual_ayyde @apodoxus (btw Apodoxus appears to have blocked me so this thread might be fragmented). The computational limits that the Austrians raised as thought experiments (which were largely born at experimentally in all of the centrally planned economies of the 20th century), have been essentially codified in modern algorithmic game theory.

@mutual_ayyde @apodoxus also rational choice theory / Bayesian rationalism + reinforcement learning, but those are basically inseparable from game theory. The thing that I consider to be the uniquely Austrian contribution to that worldview is the subjectivity of personal utility functions, and treating economics as study of comparative value judgments, rather than just production/consumption/transfer of (financial) “wealth”

@mutual_ayyde @elfprince13@mumak.app Yeah, I know but thanks for the book recommendation, looks interesting. My point only was that there was not an definitively better theory in the sense of what happened in physics.

What do you mean by point #2? You mean that it's an example of them sticking their head in the sand?

@apodoxus I mean marx kinda handwaves questions of how to rationally organize people and science and assumes that capitalists can order their organization more or less efficiently

there are serious empirical and theoretical reasons to doubt this - i recommend reading Kevin Carson for an overview

@apodoxus @elfprince13 i'm trying to write a book ATM that, among other things, goes into the history of why marxism fell into a cul-de-sac and i have considerable respect for many but also frustration

@apodoxus @elfprince13 for example i can totally understand why someone who became a marxist during the great depression or the rise of fascism or a red scare would keep the identity since they sacrificed so much for it

but in terms of actually understanding capitalism i find they just made frequent unforced errors which is extremely frustrating

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde no, I'm just saying that expending energy doesn't inherently produce value.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde I don't think this was ever in question here.

@apodoxus @mutual_ayyde That's the basic premise of a Marxist economic system though.

@elfprince13 @mutual_ayyde Not exactly but now you're closer to understanding my objection in the other branch. "All work should be valued per se" is not the same thesis "Work always produces something of value (i.e. succeeds)"