Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.
But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and “the real world” that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.
I appreciate it too, though I wouldn’t call this “arguing” so much as talking. I would call what the other user was trying to do “arguing,” haha.
Generally, science requires experimentation and observation, mathematics generally doesn’t fall into that category. Marxism generally does, as it is a toolset for observing and experimenting with human organization and social relations. You could call it “sociology” and be mostly correct, though that encompasses non-Marxian views of sociology as well as Marxian. I think when you get to this point in the specifics, the labels don’t actually matter as much except for shorthand descriptors.
What do you mean when you say “scientific”?
Well, the argument in your first paragraph is somewhat compelling. I heard the view that the service economy can grow regardless of natural resources, but I suppose you would say to that that it is only possible in imperialistic countries that move industry elsewhere.
I will think on the matter, and maybe come up with counterarguments. I am not an economist, so the finer details of markets are eluding me. In any case, Marxism or not, let us hope for a few more decades of decadent bourgeois life.
As a rule of thumb, I mean with respect to practical analysis of the real world, rather than constrained to analysis of ideas.
Your second paragraph is spot-on. Unless you reach full automation of industry, service-based economies depend on industry of other economies.
As a concluding message, I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism text. It very accurately describes the primary mechanisms of Capitalism as it develops, and is necessary analysis even if you reject the rest of Marxism.
I enjoyed our converation, it is more fun arguing with people on the internet when they are not idiots.
But I wonder, do you consider maths a science? Also, there are practices thay deal with practical matters and “the real world” that are not scientific. Like natural philosophy. I think method and rigour are more important than subject.
I appreciate it too, though I wouldn’t call this “arguing” so much as talking. I would call what the other user was trying to do “arguing,” haha.
Generally, science requires experimentation and observation, mathematics generally doesn’t fall into that category. Marxism generally does, as it is a toolset for observing and experimenting with human organization and social relations. You could call it “sociology” and be mostly correct, though that encompasses non-Marxian views of sociology as well as Marxian. I think when you get to this point in the specifics, the labels don’t actually matter as much except for shorthand descriptors.