Economics Questions

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Solid_Choke — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 00:58:25 GMT

Right-wing marxists! :)

According to the Marxists I know, the second anyone who ever claimed to be a Marxist gets into a position of power, they instantly become a ultra-right wing fascists. Stalin and Mao were actually closet fascists trying to preserve the capitalist order.

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Esuric — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:52:27 GMT

The Austrians reject the LTV, historical materialism/the laws of motion, and adhere to methodological individualism. The only thing that the Marxian and Austrian frameworks have in common is that they both employ a holistic and systematic approach, where they try to penetrate through the smokescreen and reveal what's "really going on." In this sense, De Long is correct, and this is especially true for business cycle theory (there are no random exogenous "shocks"). Austrian's, Marxists, and post-Keynesians (including Schumpeterians) alike, are interested in the fundamental and necessary causes of the trade cycle; they don't just take it as given and then begin their analysis in the middle of the process. In other words, they don't merely observe the conditions that characterize the business cycle and prescribe ad hoc remedies for the symptoms; they want to understand its fundamental causes and the actual disease itself.

Now, De Long attempts to discredit this approach, not by revealing some fundamental and logical flaw with it (though it's easy to reveal the fundamental flaw of his unsystematic approach), but rather by associating it with religious repentance, pessimism, and defeatism, while appealing to majority (a logical fallacy). In other words, his argument is an emotional one; he's trying to discredit something without actually discrediting it. And finally, he makes a lot of mistakes in that rant, some of which I've already mentioned (for example, the Post-Keynesians and classical schools, such as the currency school, belong alongside the Austrians and Marxists. He also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Say's law).

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

baxter — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:42:13 GMT

Mathematicians who believe 1+1=2 are basically the same as mathematicians who believe that 1+1=3, they just have different axioms.

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Vitor — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:42:38 GMT

Marxists who don't believe LVT.

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Brainpolice — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:26:12 GMT

Right-wing marxists! :)

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Libertyandlife — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:06:04 GMT

It would explain why so many austrians were previously marxists or socialists. It would explain why I am so friendly with socialists in general.

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

FunkedUp — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:28:15 GMT

I've been thinking about this. I think that Austrians are very similar to Marxists in some ways. For example, both use a deductive method. Both accept, though there may be slight differences, a version of the of the dialectic. Marxists use the bourgeousie vs. the proletariat, and Austrians use the government vs. the market. Both are aware of the ruling class determining the "ideological superstructure." Both see the problems of business merging with the state.

The two main differences, in my opinion, are the conceptions of value and historical materialism.

Check this out...

http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

Austrians should take note of not throwing out the Libertarian baby with the Marxist bathwater.

Re: Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Solid_Choke — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 02:25:31 GMT

The ABCT predates Schumpeter's BCT (who actually was very much influenced by Marx), so I don't see how ABCT could have been influenced by Marx via Schumpeter.

Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:50:15 GMT

... according to Brad DeLong. He's being facetious, but it calls into question whether or not his book on the history of economic thought should be published.