[ohgodplsno]

>You have to ignore 120 years of intellectual progress on economics to still want to apply labor theory of value to problems. There may be a day when we can achieve some semblance of a "socialist" mode of production

What an absolute load of crap. Economics as a whole is barely a science, at best a toy, and that multiple pathways exist is not an indictment of any theory. Marx's observations hold true all these years after, alongside the progress we've had.

You clowns would take a system as complex as, oh, simply the whole of human activity and try to reduce it to a few simple laws. Sorry, despite what you learned online, "supply and demand" is not a fundamental law of the universe. This is not physics. There are no simple answers. There aren't even proper answers. Every school of economics holds on barely by a thread. "Assuming a rational actor" is the "assume a spherical cow in a vacuum" of liberal economics.

[mikrl]

Economics itself is a reduction of human behaviour to resource allocation.

The underlying field of study of human action in general is called praxeology and was only seriously investigated by:

- Austrian school economists (1900s-present)

- Polish school philosophers (briefly in the interwar period, died out after WW2 when Lwów became Lviv)

I think wresting praxeology free of economics would be an interesting movement in philosophy.

[thiagoharry]

I do not agree with the upper comment that economy is not a science. It is just a human science, where you could have different schools of thought based on different philosophies. But praxeology is indeed an example of something that is not science, as it rejects the scientific method and the empirism.