[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 738x415, 31B0B97C-F1AE-4746-A5C7-B8B4FFB6E3CE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19352239 No.19352239 [Reply] [Original]

>Be me
>Was attending online anarchist book discussion
>The speaker said that capitalism is evil because it gaves unfair salaries to workers
>I respondended by saying, “What you have said about ‘unfair salary’ is vague. You didn’t exatcly explain in concrete way. You didn’t show the numbers which considered ‘Unfair.’ I guess you have just tried to do double-speak.”
>Refuse to eleborate further
>Leave

>> No.19352263

>>19352239
Why do lefties always have to moralize economics? Doing so invariably leads to bad outcomes. There are objective metrics to explain why people have the salaries/net worth they do. You can call that evil but if your solution is some hyper inefficient centralized government that will make everyone materially worse off then you can stfu.

>> No.19352275

>>19352263
>Why do lefties always have to moralize economics?
Time to read Capital son.

>> No.19352442

>>19352263
>Why do lefties always have to moralize economics?
Time to read a 5 gorrilion page long unfinished book on Economics written by a seething midwit bum who misinterpreted classical economics son.

>> No.19352451

>>19352263
There is nothing objective about economics. It is women's studies tier.

>> No.19352466

>>19352451
Wrong. There are things that are objectively true in economics but determining what is true is especially hard. In this way, it is like medicine, or even worse, diet science.
Look up the replication crisis and learn about basic philosophy of science shit like "falsifiability".

>> No.19352467

>>19352263
Economics is soft science. Don't pretend you're on a high road.

>> No.19352471

>and then everyone in the call stood up and clapped

>> No.19352472

>>19352442
Read the full title son “critique of political economy”

Also learn why the discipline of economics was formed and it’s specifying assumption.

>> No.19352477

>>19352466
>true
>falsifiable
You need to actually read Popper. And the Kuhn. And then Lakatos. And then Feyerabend.

>> No.19352480

>Be me
>Sit in to listen to an acclaimed academic give a virtual talk on anarchist literature
>Fruitful, intellectually honest discussion on the topic and surrounding disciplines ensues
>Everyone's participating
>With the natural flow of conversation, the speaker begins to outline a valid criticism of capitalism
>Gets interrupted by an obese, disheveled teenager
>"The thing is so uhm... Vague.. what you said.. uh, like Unfair! Yeah, how is is it unfair??? Show me the numbers!!"
>Speaker patiently tells the kid his critique of capitalism is a qualitative one that and "unfairness" isn't a strict signifier of median wages.
>The kid starts breathing heavy. Tries to muster a response. Leaves instead.

Was kinda awkward for all of us.

>> No.19352482

>>19352467
Doesn't mean diluting it any further will make it a better science lmao.
We should be moving away from moral considerations in "pure economics" and only considering such questions in "applied economics".

>> No.19352494

>>19352482
You can’t dilute a field whose specifying assumption is “we are right” and then goes on to prove itself right. The tautology is trivial and boring. Lakatos should do you for this.

>> No.19352569

>>19352494
Economies exists and they act in some deterministic way.
We would like to have a way of speaking about them and understanding how they work.
Theories of Political Economy are how we attempt to do that.
When I was spoke of dilution, I meant that moralizations get in the way of materialist analyses of phenomena (the point of science).
>The tautology is trivial and boring.
Math is all about tautologies, but it isn't trivial nor boring.
Theories of Political Economy should be built on tautologies because that's how any consistent systems are built, and the world is consistent.
It's why we mathematize everything.
When we are finished building up models and systems, we test them against the world.
> Lakatos should do you for this.
I don't want Lakatos to do me.

>> No.19352581

>>19352569
So now you’ve slipped from marginalists economics to the general field of PE. DECIDE WHAT TARGET YOURE DEFENDING MATE.

>> No.19352592

>>19352581
I'm defending economics from moralizing.
I haven't even touched the cringe that is LTV.

>> No.19352730

>>19352477
why should he?

>> No.19352783

Is there anything dumber than left anarchists? Without a state, I can do whatever I want. I can hire people, coerce them and enslave them if I so wished. All I hear from left anarchists is constant moralizing and seething and no argument. You ask then anything and their answer is
>BECAUSE IT IS, OKAY?
>BECAUSE IT WOULD BE, OKAY?
They think everything would be coom by yah kek.

>> No.19352787

>>19352569
Fuck off althusser. Your boys lost to EP Thompson of all people a vulgar humanist. Praxis defeats all surdetermination.

>> No.19352795

>>19352783
Kek. Based.

>> No.19352803

>>19352592
You can’t differentiate PE from marginalism. You’re a meat shield. Fuck off and spruike doge.

>> No.19353883

>>19352239
>/lit/ - Literature