Is Marxism a science?

[Dermezel]

Also you need to check out this pro-free market site that basically reiterates what I am saying- that Ricardo established the labor theory of value a long time ago, and that marginalist arguments against the theory are largely straw man:

Quote:

Böhm-Bawerk's straw-man caricature of what the labor theory was intended to demonstrate, certainly, did not hold up at all well under his onslaught. But then, straw-men are deliberately constructed to be knocked down. He would have made as much sense in saying that the law of gravity was invalidated by all the exceptions presented by air resistance, wind, obstacles, human effort, and so forth. The force operates at all times, but its operation is always qualified by the action of secondary forces. But it is clear, in the case of gravity, which is the first-order phenomenon, and which are second-order deviations from it.

http://www.mutualist.org/id50.html

Basically he is arguing what I am, the so-called transformation problem is nothing more then short-term exceptions. Saying it refutes the labor theory of value is like saying that because you saw a hot air balloon you have refuted the law of gravity.

[Golden Dysprosium]

One more time:
Marxist values use this equation rlA(QBAB + QDaD) = σ(lAaB + lB)(QBlB + QDlD) to "solve" the transformation problem, while the correct formula for that sort of thing is PD=ID+(1+r)IAaD=ID+(AD(1-IB))/AB.

Mathematically (since it's basic algebra), how is this wrong? neutral

[Dermezel]

Golden Dysprosium

One more time:
Marxist values use this equation rlA(QBAB + QDaD) = σ(lAaB + lB)(QBlB + QDlD) to "solve" the transformation problem, while the correct formula for that sort of thing is PD=ID+(1+r)IAaD=ID+(AD(1-IB))/AB.

Mathematically (since it's basic algebra), how is this wrong? neutral

Explain what you mean without the math formula.

[Golden Dysprosium]

Quote:

Dermezel

Golden Dysprosium

One more time:
Marxist values use this equation rlA(QBAB + QDaD) = σ(lAaB + lB)(QBlB + QDlD) to "solve" the transformation problem, while the correct formula for that sort of thing is PD=ID+(1+r)IAaD=ID+(AD(1-IB))/AB.
Mathematically (since it's basic algebra), how is this wrong? neutral

Explain what you mean without the math formula.

No. You should've actually read the article, which says it best:

Quote:

....uses a very simplified linear production model to survey Marx's labour theory of value... It then offers a simple proof of the general lack of solution for the transformation problem, highlighting Marx's formal error in his attempt to find one.

Mentioned in "Capital"
Marx's reasoning
Marx's Error
The NON-transformation problem
I'm asking you to mathematically (since it's algebra) prove that it is wrong, as it is simply a mathematical construct (as demonstrated) based on Marx's own values compared against the actual modern formula for calculating value.
With such a strong interest in economics, one would think you'd know a little bit of basic algebra.

[Dermezel]

Golden Dysprosium

Quote:

Dermezel

Golden Dysprosium

One more time:
Marxist values use this equation rlA(QBAB + QDaD) = σ(lAaB + lB)(QBlB + QDlD) to "solve" the transformation problem, while the correct formula for that sort of thing is PD=ID+(1+r)IAaD=ID+(AD(1-IB))/AB.
Mathematically (since it's basic algebra), how is this wrong? neutral

Explain what you mean without the math formula.

No. You should've actually read the article, which says it best:

Well is your summary of the problem correct, that you can charge more then the cost of production?

Golden Dysprosium

Mentioned in "Capital"

You do realize that Marx did not write Capital Volume 3, that he was dead at the time, and that Engel's wrote the entire volume based on Marx's notes?

In any case so long as your summary remains the one used (that the price of an object may, at times, be more or less then the cost of production), it is, as I said earlier, a straw man argument that was refuted by David Ricardo decades before Marx.

In fact this entire problem sounded made up from the start, and very much like the pseudoscience of marginal utility both in style of presentation (largely made up mathematics with little correlation to anything real) and a lack of testability.

Sure enough when considering your wiki article, and the pro-capitalist/anti-marginalist article I stumbled upon a common name: Böhm-Bawerk, an founder of the Austrian Economics School (a libertarian think tank that, among other things, developed the admittedly untestable theory of marginal utility) and also, coincidentally, a main proponent of the transformation problem.

Quote:

Many mathematical economists assert that a similar set of functions does not generally exist, so that Chapter 9's transformation problem has formally no solution, outside two classes of very special cases. This was first pointed out long ago by, among others, Böhm-Bawerk (1896) and Bortkiewicz (1906).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem

Quote:

This is also a shortcoming of the Austrian utility theory, as it was developed by Böhm-Bawerk and his Austrian followers, up to the present. Not only did the later Austrians inadequately treat the time dimension, but they were forced to a position of radical skepticism regarding the notions of "equilibrium price," in order to avoid a Marshallian understanding of the dynamic effect of production cost on price, through the effect of market price on supply.

Quote:

Böhm-Bawerk was at his best in systematically analyzing the exceptions to the labor-theory and the cost-principle. In so doing, however, he was forced to admit a rough statistical correlation between cost and price in cases of reproducible goods; and in so admitting, he was forced to reduce his argument to quibbling over the required level of generality of a theory of value. So, Böhm-Bawerk having set the terms of discussion, let us proceed to examine his list of exceptions to Ricardo's cost-theory of price.

http://www.mutualist.org/id50.html

In other words the source of your argument from marginal utility, and the transformation problem, is the Austrian school of economics in both cases (Bortkiewicz is also associated with the Austrian School) . This school has admitted from the onset that its theories are untestable even in principle and based on philosophy more then actual science. During this debate you have also quoted an Ayn Rand front site, capitalism.org, which is likewise a site arguing from philosophy as opposed to science.

In any case, Bohm's argument against the labor theory of value is simply to assume there are no general prices, i.e. to point out the fact that there are exceptions. His argument is widely regarded as a straw man argument due to the fact that the labor theory of value is meant to explain general prices not all prices under any conceivable situation without exception.

I'm starting to suspect at this point that the Austrian School of Economics is sort of the equivalent of Institute of Creation Research or Discovery Institute for economics.

[Golden Dysprosium]

I think this is the problem:

Dermezel

Golden Dysprosium

Marxist values use this equation rlA(QBAB + QDaD) = σ(lAaB + lB)(QBlB + QDlD) to "solve" the transformation problem, while the correct formula for that sort of thing is PD=ID+(1+r)IAaD=ID+(AD(1-IB))/AB.
Mathematically (since it's basic algebra), how is this wrong? neutral

Explain what you mean without the math formula.

See, that is literally the Transformation Problem. There's no institution or philosophy behind it, so you can't play that card.
Although, I guess this one is much more simple, and the contribution of Mr. Leontief adds the credibility to it.

Quote:

...relative embodied labour defined as eD=ED/EB can vary, while at the same time the correctly defined relative price PD remains constant. This follows from the fact that in our simple model eD varies with lA while PD does not. Thus any change in the labour input required by arrow production will affect the Marxian value of deer relative to beavers, but will leave the economic value of deer totally unaffected.

This lovely graph should give you a visual example.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Non_Transformation.png
Although, I suppose I should dumb it down even further. Let's say it take you 5 minutes to make a sandwich, which sells for $3.00. After a week, you can make the same $3 sandwich in 2 minutes. According to Marx, it's value would change. But it doesn't. It's still the same $3 sandwich, whether it takes you 2 minutes or 8 hours. This is what the graph clearly illustrates. The change in labor results in the curvature, which coincides with the first formula above (rlA=blah blah blah), which was gleamed from Marx's notes, as it was his example.
Do you understand?

[fr19141991]

Is Marxism a science? Science being the organization and observation of facts into working theories and systematic, self-consistent ideas which change as new information is discovered. I have studied Marxism and I would call it a science. It has analyzed the historical world and it has analyzed the present. It has reached conclusions based on the analysis of facts. It has not settled, as the bourgeousie philosophs so often do, on unpredictability, on uncomfirmability, on faith, or prayer or some fuzzy concept of a 'human nature' which serves at every turn to twist and change in accordance with their momentary stance. What so often comes as a complete surprise to bourgeous economists and politicians and philosophs has been apparent to those who unravel the fabric of history systematically, to the marxists. Marxism saw and explained the rise of Hitler in Germany, it explained the strikes which followed the war, and it explained the causes of the faiulure of the revolutionary movements of the time. Hitler was the result of the economic stress, the class interests took priority. The established order, facing either revolution by the workers or fascism in their favor chose the latter, abandoning illusions of democracy in order to control the working class, and save themselves from the same fate as that which occurred initially in Russia. Marxism, specifically Trotskyism, explained the latter Soviet Union, gave reasons for its demise and understood its nature and learned from it. Indeed, the final collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 came as no surprise to Marxists. It analyzed the world and drew from that conclusions, based not on some philosophical axiom taken from thin air, nor from some concept of dogged ideological insistence, but from factual observation. There are no international occurrences which cannot be understood, or which can remain shrouded in mystery if a genuine analysis of facts is presented, such as is the case with Marxism. It is a science, in that it takes facts and builds on them an understanding of the world.

[Alt_Jack]

Marx certainly crafted a nice story.

Quote:

The lowly factory workers rebel against their evil employers who are (apparently, though this is demonstratably false) exploiting the workers for their own profit. After violent international anarchy, a socialist utopia is constructed (never really said how) and everything is all rainbows and ponies from there.

I'm sure there would be some pop-ups in "Das Kapital".
His "labor theory of value" has been shown to be mathematically false, as shown above.
Class struggle is an important element in history, but things like faith and ambition are far more prevalent in history. Brushing these things aside shows blatant ignorance.
Historical science is just pretentious history, as it lacks the rigor of what is commonly defined as being "science".
In fact, the title question brings an obvious answer of "no". The question should actually be "Is Marxism scientific?", which is also an obvious "no". This error alone shows how uneducated the OP is.

[Vedun]

Doesn't anyone read these days?

Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie

In English: Capital: Critique of Political Economy


So no, Marxism is not a science. It's a system of both beliefs and goals that are meant to explain and critique the science of Political Economy... Yada, yada, yada I'm drunk at the moment. Have fun tearing up my statement. smile

[zz1000zz]

Alt_Jack

In fact, the title question brings an obvious answer of "no". The question should actually be "Is Marxism scientific?", which is also an obvious "no". This error alone shows how uneducated the OP is.

Regardless of how right, wrong or uneducated Dermezel may or may not be, this is just silly. Dermezel has done nothing in this topic to indicate he is confused about the difference between "being scientific" and "being a science." Moreover, it would be perfectly valid to call Marxism a "science" if it were what Dermezel claims.

If you wish to deride Dermezel because Marxism is an infantile approach which is known to be false, go ahead. There is plenty of material in this topic worthy of derision. Why would you focus on such a non-issue as the topic name?

[mluck24]

call it what it really is, communism. Stop using marxism, it lowers the strength of the opposition.
Just like saying weed instead of marijuana.

[Golden Dysprosium]

zz1000zz

Regardless of how right, wrong or uneducated Dermezel may or may not be, this is just silly. Dermezel has done nothing in this topic to indicate he is confused about the difference between "being scientific" and "being a science." Moreover, it would be perfectly valid to call Marxism a "science" if it were what Dermezel claims.

I think emphasis should be put on the "if". The vast majority of his sources are anti-capitalist, so they're likely to contain some distortions. Vedun actually summerized it quite nicely. "Das Kapital" is just a critique of a certain economic system which is no longer in use. It's pretty obvious that Marx started off with a pre-established bias. It seems he never even worked in a factory, but studied it through the heresay of others. He was a university-educated writer, which basically put him in the class he built his career on criticizing.

[Dermezel]

Alt_Jack

Marx certainly crafted a nice story.

Quote:

The lowly factory workers rebel against their evil employers who are (apparently, though this is demonstratably false) exploiting the workers for their own profit. After violent international anarchy, a socialist utopia is constructed (never really said how) and everything is all rainbows and ponies from there.

I'm sure there would be some pop-ups in "Das Kapital".
His "labor theory of value" has been shown to be mathematically false, as shown above.
Class struggle is an important element in history, but things like faith and ambition are far more prevalent in history. Brushing these things aside shows blatant ignorance.
Historical science is just pretentious history, as it lacks the rigor of what is commonly defined as being "science".
In fact, the title question brings an obvious answer of "no". The question should actually be "Is Marxism scientific?", which is also an obvious "no". This error alone shows how uneducated the OP is.

Actually the thing I find most interesting about Capital is how little it mentions class. Generally it focuses on how capital develops over time in a market system.

[Dermezel]

Golden Dysprosium

I think this is the problem:

Dermezel

Golden Dysprosium

Marxist values use this equation rlA(QBAB + QDaD) = σ(lAaB + lB)(QBlB + QDlD) to "solve" the transformation problem, while the correct formula for that sort of thing is PD=ID+(1+r)IAaD=ID+(AD(1-IB))/AB.
Mathematically (since it's basic algebra), how is this wrong? neutral

Explain what you mean without the math formula.

See, that is literally the Transformation Problem. There's no institution or philosophy behind it, so you can't play that card.
Although, I guess this one is much more simple, and the contribution of Mr. Leontief adds the credibility to it.

Quote:

...relative embodied labour defined as eD=ED/EB can vary, while at the same time the correctly defined relative price PD remains constant. This follows from the fact that in our simple model eD varies with lA while PD does not. Thus any change in the labour input required by arrow production will affect the Marxian value of deer relative to beavers, but will leave the economic value of deer totally unaffected.

This lovely graph should give you a visual example.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Non_Transformation.png
Although, I suppose I should dumb it down even further. Let's say it take you 5 minutes to make a sandwich, which sells for $3.00. After a week, you can make the same $3 sandwich in 2 minutes. According to Marx, it's value would change. But it doesn't. It's still the same $3 sandwich, whether it takes you 2 minutes or 8 hours. This is what the graph clearly illustrates. The change in labor results in the curvature, which coincides with the first formula above (rlA=blah blah blah), which was gleamed from Marx's notes, as it was his example.
Do you understand?

Again, and you seem to be missing this despite repeated attempts to explain the matter, the Transformation Problem is a straw man argument. It basically implies the labor theory of value is absolute i.e. meant to explain all prices in all situations, instead of recognizing it as a theory of general prices or price equilibrium.

The source of the Transformation Problem is likewise the same as that for Marginal Utility, namely the extreme right Austrian School of Economics, who have admitted that their core hypothesis- marginal utility- is untestable and hence pseudoscientific.

In fact the Austrian School is so extreme they don't just advocate capitalism, they advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Total free market, no social programs or government regulations at all:

Quote:

The Austrian School (also known as the Vienna School or the Psychological School) is a school of economic thought that emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism. Austrians hold that the complexity of human behavior makes mathematical modeling of the evolving market extremely difficult (or undecidable) and advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

This is an extremely ideological group, which generally does not follow the scientific method at all (they have basically admitted this on several occasions). It is also the primary institute from which the ideas of marginal utility and the transformation problem originated.

[Dermezel]

Golden Dysprosium

Dermezel

You do realize whether or not we decide to have mixed economies is irrelevant to whether or not the science of Marxism is correct.

It's not. Marxist economies, much like your arguments, were complete failures.

Wait, isn't China the fastest growing economy in the world? Didn't the USSR collapse after turning to capitalism? That's like saying a medicine is based on bad science because the patient died after he stopped taking it.