Far too many people have actually studied Marx in academic situations for Marxist economics to ever become mainstream at the very least. The simple fact that the Labor Theory of Value is fundamentally incorrect would be the major problem. We aren’t adopting Marxist economics like we won’t be going back to a Lamarkian perspective on evolution, because we know it is wrong.
Marxist sociology is what I hope becomes more common.
Making something artificially scarce. Like access to books, AI or oil fields, or taxi licenses, or real estate.
But that doesn’t invalidate everything Marx said about labor, it just adds to it.
Note I’m not an economist.
Supply side economics is also proved to be incomplete and it’s still the only way central banks try to stimulate the economy, by flooding the market with cheap money in the hopes capitalists grab it and use to produce more things. Sometimes they just put into their Cayman accounts, and central banks just doubles down.
Marx already spoke about artificial scarcity and rent, though. None of that invalidates Marx’s critique, they are already accounted for. I think the other user is mixing up Marx’s Law of Value with Adam Smith’s Labor Theory of Value.
Edit: Marx (and similar theorists before him) do a better job describing Capitalism compared to those whose paychecks depend on them not understanding / distorting it.
Economic systems are not viewed in terms of who “rules” unless we are taking a Marxist perspective.
The first sentence of the post is and will always be completely untrue.
Bro just watched tech billionaires coup the US government and he still doesn’t understand the problems with the concentration of wealth.
I’m looking forward to everybody getting red-pilled on Marx in the coming months.
Far too many people have actually studied Marx in academic situations for Marxist economics to ever become mainstream at the very least. The simple fact that the Labor Theory of Value is fundamentally incorrect would be the major problem. We aren’t adopting Marxist economics like we won’t be going back to a Lamarkian perspective on evolution, because we know it is wrong.
Marxist sociology is what I hope becomes more common.
In what manner is Marx’s Law of Value wrong?
There are ways value is created that are absent of labor and Marxist economists have to go to extremes to justify the labor basis of the value. l
Can you provide an example?
Making something artificially scarce. Like access to books, AI or oil fields, or taxi licenses, or real estate.
But that doesn’t invalidate everything Marx said about labor, it just adds to it.
Note I’m not an economist.
Supply side economics is also proved to be incomplete and it’s still the only way central banks try to stimulate the economy, by flooding the market with cheap money in the hopes capitalists grab it and use to produce more things. Sometimes they just put into their Cayman accounts, and central banks just doubles down.
Marx already spoke about artificial scarcity and rent, though. None of that invalidates Marx’s critique, they are already accounted for. I think the other user is mixing up Marx’s Law of Value with Adam Smith’s Labor Theory of Value.
At no point have I said that the concentration of wealth isn’t a problem.
I have said that it is false to claim democracy and capitalism cannot co-exist. They absolutely can and do in many nations. France is currently both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
Edit: Marx (and similar theorists before him) do a better job describing Capitalism compared to those whose paychecks depend on them not understanding / distorting it.