My experience as a scientist is that to do good science, you need to be thinking dialectically. I think a lot about why more scientists are not Marxists; people who are good at thinking about the interconnectivity and changing nature of things in their science turn to eclecticism in their political beliefs/philosophy. Part of this is that I think we treat science and politics as such disparate things that must never interact.

A lot of the “business” of science is very undialectical, and that’s where you see the failures of the field manifest. For example, assessment of a scientist’s contributions based on first authorship, journal prestige, etc, encourages bad practices with respect to collaboration and sharing results.

You might enjoy this article by Bernal, a Marxist scientist: https://redsails.org/the-social-function-of-science/

Already we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human action. The task which the scientists have undertaken — the understanding and control of nature and of man himself — is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society. The methods by which this task is attempted, however imperfectly they are realized, are the methods by which humanity is most likely to secure its own future. In its endeavour, science is communism. In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors. In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realize that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal. Not orders, but advice, determine action. Each man knows that only by advice, honestly and disinterestedly given, can his work succeed, because such advice expresses as near as may be the inexorable logic of the material world, stubborn fact. Facts cannot be forced to our desires, and freedom comes by admitting this necessity and not by pretending to ignore it. These things have been learned painfully and incompletely in the pursuit of science. Only in the wider tasks of humanity will their full use be found.

It’s interesting to note that the household survey tracked the revised numbers more closely than the preliminary data (final graph in report). There has been a lot of handwringing about why people are unhappy with the economy while economic indicators look good, and perhaps this sheds some insight.

Can you please let me know how often I should post such that I am neither terminally online nor suspiciously off-line?

It’s strange to me that being responsive to questions, regardless of the amount of social clout someone has, is somehow spun as a bad characteristic about Roderic here.

there’s an email listed on the RedSails “contact” page: https://redsails.org/contact/

Just a quick correction, this isn’t written by Day. As noted in the forward, it is by JW Mason:

J. W. Mason is Associate Professor of economics at John Jay College, CUNY and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

While obviously capitalism sucks for art, it’s not clear to me that a LToV-based system would allow you to make the type of art you want to make without consideration of what the people who use the art will value.

Maybe you find this essay has some useful ways to think about it: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

It quotes from mainstream media sources to support the charge that the communist party keeps their reins on the billionaires in a way that just doesn’t happen in capitalist countries, with an eye towards long term goals.