Has marxist theory been axiomatized?
What's the relation between dialectical materialism and logic? Are they reciprocally contradictory?
Is there interesting improvable truths within the marxist theory? Give me examples
Hayek made a correlation between godel's incompleteness theorem and the impossibility of economic calculation under 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧socialism🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧. What do you people have to argue?
I once read a book on formal logic but never found an use to the discipline
Whether anyone who knows what they are talking about will answer this is going to be a crapshoot. Paul Cockshott says computers and some Soviet dude's equations fix it, you might find his Towards a New Socialism interesting. I think I remember him saying some companies use the maths to plan internally in an interview. It might have been this youtube.com
You can win arguments if you deconstruct an axiomatic system and proof a proposition is false showing that one of the axioms it's derivated from is flawed.
Also you can fix some axioms within your system or to agregate other axioms to improve it (make it «««more complete»»»)
I know hayek's academic work is roughly 87% pure pseudoscientific horseshit, but it would be nice to disprove their argument using rigurous methods instead of showing counter-arguments.
Aka disproving it by it's roots instead of it's implications
I know nothing about this 2bh.
Didn't Hayek just add that planning is impossible because expertise is dispersed throughout society?
Aparently he also made an analogy between the impossibility of an omniscient state and the impossibility of demonstrating every proposition within an axiomatic system as complex as arithmetic.
Hayek's work on psychology also seem to be very close to Penrose's.
Logic (Aristotelian logic at least) for Hegel lacked a proper subject and was mere abstraction, and he considered a method based on Euclid's Geometry (i.e. axiomatization) improper. That was one of his criticisms of Spinoza, actually.
...
It seems like a false equivalence to me, and if it isn't, doesn't it mean the economy is a logical system, and a market economy has to have the same problem?
Either way, maybe you can claim replacing one general plan with a thousand competing firms (each firm being a unit of planning) will result in a better outcome, I think it will lead to a different outcome, but I don't see how you can claim that it leads to a rational allocation of goods. The firms know only if if they can sell their product for more than it costs to make it.
Rolex knows people buy Rolexes, the bread factory knows people are buying bread, children are still living on the streets, and they claim that the allocation is rational just because the epistemic machine that the market is says so? Aren't they proceeding from false premises when they say the market economy results in a rational distribution of resources?
The idea that the market as a whole knows things or processes information seems slightly dangerous to me too. If the market knows more than I (or anyone else) does, then what the market wants me to do is what is most useful to society? Pic related.
formalising removes subjective element leading to autism, eg. g.a. cohen's 'defence', which op should read. at least his essay 'structure of proletarian unfreedom'.
not to eliminate subjective elements in our theory leads to muh feels and rebuttability.
this is a good argument
Isn't dialectics derivable from axioms? How the hell does that work?
pd: i know shit about dialectics
have u read marx?
Yes. Now explain yourself
u read marx but know shit about dialectics and want to remove subjectivity from "our" theory? read suggestions in
hahahaha
No, dialectics cannot be derived from axioms. It's purely a negative, critical method. It comes from the same root as "dialogue", the arguments between two people. It ultimately derives from the Socratic method.
edensauvage.wordpress.com
Some people are working on using fuzzy logic:
en.wikipedia.org
to formalize marxist dialectics.
read this
Do you have a link to any examples of this?
t. never read cockshott
read that article, Hayek's informational argument got BTFO by information theory in the 30s, there's no more need for a 'rigorous' refutation of his arguments that there is a need for modern chemists to do a rigorous refutation of alchemy
i need it only for autistic purposes tbh, the explanation may be interersting af.
Well, clearly somebody doesn't understand the incompleteness theorem. It states that within all axiomatic systems, there are true statements which the said axioms aren't sufficient to prove.
read
A great example of not understanding it.
you and i said roughlt the same, and as a matter of fact, my description is better than yours, since there actually are complete and coherent axiomatic systems simpler than arithmetic.
oh, now i see, i mispelled the word "proposition" instead of "theorem".
sorry, im not a native english speaker