I mean…is it? Like do we have a precise mathematical description for marxist economics like we have for physics? (This isn’t an “anarchism vs marxism"-type question, since to the best of my knowledge, anarchist economic systems also share a lack of formal mathematical model.)
i mean marxism is essentially “hey what if we looked at history as a system with causes and effects” so yea, it’s as much “physics” as anything called “economics” today is going to get. Capitalist economics is essentially just a priesthood dogmatically working backwards to justify its continued existence blinding itself to as many problems caused by it as they can
it’s as much “physics” as anything called “economics” today is going to get.
Yeah that’s kinda my point. “As much ‘physics’ as anything called “economics” today is going to get” is not necessarily “physics”. IMO, physics has one of the strongest standards of evidence of any field of endeavor. It’s an extremely strong comparison that I’m really hesitant to make about almost any other field of endeavor.
The triumph of physics is really the empirical evidence, and the mathematical models. E.g., we know Maxwell’s equations, we have oodles of physical evidence that it’s a sensible model, but what exactly is charge? Why do electrons have it? Physics doesn’t explain that. The point of physics is to be able to quantitatively analyze and predict physical phenomena.
Marxism and anarchism have oodles of evidence that they are sensible frameworks for economic analysis. And if I remember correctly, Das Kapital has some elementary equations, and Marx himself was in fact an early adopter of calculus. But to the best of my knowledge, these are both qualitative frameworks. Physics is primarily quantitative. (And even when it uses qualitative techniques, e.g. most of the work in nonlinear dynamics, these “qualitative” analyses quietly have a quantitative description, e.g. a Lyapunov function.)
Capitalist economics is essentially just a priesthood dogmatically working backwards to justify its continued existence blinding itself to as many problems caused by it as they can
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus 1 month ago
I mean…is it? Like do we have a precise mathematical description for marxist economics like we have for physics? (This isn’t an “anarchism vs marxism"-type question, since to the best of my knowledge, anarchist economic systems also share a lack of formal mathematical model.)
LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 1 month ago
i mean marxism is essentially “hey what if we looked at history as a system with causes and effects” so yea, it’s as much “physics” as anything called “economics” today is going to get. Capitalist economics is essentially just a priesthood dogmatically working backwards to justify its continued existence blinding itself to as many problems caused by it as they can
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus 1 month ago
Yeah that’s kinda my point. “As much ‘physics’ as anything called “economics” today is going to get” is not necessarily “physics”. IMO, physics has one of the strongest standards of evidence of any field of endeavor. It’s an extremely strong comparison that I’m really hesitant to make about almost any other field of endeavor.
The triumph of physics is really the empirical evidence, and the mathematical models. E.g., we know Maxwell’s equations, we have oodles of physical evidence that it’s a sensible model, but what exactly is charge? Why do electrons have it? Physics doesn’t explain that. The point of physics is to be able to quantitatively analyze and predict physical phenomena.
Marxism and anarchism have oodles of evidence that they are sensible frameworks for economic analysis. And if I remember correctly, Das Kapital has some elementary equations, and Marx himself was in fact an early adopter of calculus. But to the best of my knowledge, these are both qualitative frameworks. Physics is primarily quantitative. (And even when it uses qualitative techniques, e.g. most of the work in nonlinear dynamics, these “qualitative” analyses quietly have a quantitative description, e.g. a Lyapunov function.)
Absolutely.