I’m afraid that’s not true, because… uh… the
Labour Theory of Value… for Marx’s predictions… for Marx’s, uh, critique of
capitalism to be worth anything, it has to work in the real world—it has to
predict the… uh… falling rate of… uh… profit.
§ 2: AA
rejects the scientific method
In
effort to save face, AA has attempted to retrospectively distort the events of
the debate by recasting Jack as some kind of religious dogmatic, and recasting
himself as not an idiot. Jack is described as “a Marxist ideologue priest” (here), and his definition of value likened to a false creationist
presupposition (here):
It’s like arguing with a creationist using
Intelligent Design as the starting-point of the argument, and me saying, ‘Well,
look, Intelligent Design isn’t right, it’s not the right starting-point,
because that’s not the nature of nature. You know, evolution is the
thing that explains nature, not intelligent design,’ and him saying, ‘Yes but
in order to refute my theory you have to start with intelligent design!’ So
really, Jack wanted to have a theological argument, basically straightjacketed
in the terms of Marx’s theoretical prison; and all I wanted to do is point out
that the reality of the situation is that value doesn’t work like
that—empirical reality doesn’t work like that. So, the whole exercise was kind
of fruitless, because I was trying to talk about economics, and he was trying
to have this conversation about what is essentially theology.
Numerous
iterations of this sentiment were repeated by AA in comments across twitter and
youtube, as he attempted to rewrite history by portraying Jack as an anti-scientific
“priest,” Das Kapital as “the Bible,” and the LTV as “theology,” etc.
In successive retellings of
this narrative, AA began to employ increasingly flamboyant analogies: the LTV
isn’t merely theology, but high theology:
Alternatively, the LTV isn’t
merely “theology,” but also “moral philosophy” and possibly liberation-theology:
Alternatively, the LTV is
like creationism, and Marxists are like creationists:
Alternatively, Marxists are
like “flat earthers”:
Alternatively, the LTV is “Marxist
mumbo jumbo magic”:
Alternatively, Jack is a
“priest,” Das Kapital is “chapter and verse theology” and the LTV is
“shamanism”:
And
so on.
By equating the LTV to religion, etc., AA attempts to
suggest that—mutatis mutandis—the LTV is similarly wrong. However, these
analogies presuppose that the LTV (like religion, etc.) has been shown to be
incoherent, or invalid in terms of inferences, or unsound in terms of premises,
or false in terms of predictions, or unfalsifiable, or ad hoc—which is
precisely what AA has thus far failed to demonstrate. He is putting the cart
before the horse.
The irony here is that Jack was the one who repeatedly
advocated the scientific method as the means to evaluate the LTV, adducing
specific criteria on several occasions (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Indeed, AA’s attempt to
equate Jack to a theologian was already refuted during the debate, when
Jack once again reiterated his scientific approach to the LTV (here). Meanwhile, AA generally came
across as scientifically illiterate, and did little more than vaguely appeal to
“the real world” in lieu of actual arguments; at one point, he even declared (in relation to the LTV):
“I literally couldn’t give a shit about what it predicts and what it doesn’t
predict.” This is especially ironic given AA’s subsequent claim that Jack “doesn’t really
care about evidence.” AA’s scientific illiteracy also manifested when he claimed that the LTV “is a
completely ad hoc theory,” and then claimed two minutes later that the
LTV is false because “none” of its predictions came true—this is a direct
contradiction, since an ad hoc theory in science is one which makes
correct predictions, but merely explains what it was designed to explain. By
definition, an ad hoc theory is not false per se, and conversely,
a falsified theory cannot be ad hoc—AA doesn’t seem to understand what ad
hoc means in a scientific context, as Jack noted during the debate. Indeed,
AA doesn’t seem to recognise the established criteria for evaluating scientific
theories in general; thus, when Jack once again outlined these criteria vis-à-vis
the LTV, AA cut him off and declared: “I’m not having this
debate on your terms!” Perhaps they don’t teach concepts such as
‘falsifiability’ and ‘coherence’ within the discipline of English
Literature—either way, AA dismissed the scientific method.
In short: contrary to his attempted revisionism, it
was AA who came across as the anti-scientific ideologue, whereas Jack came
across as an advocate for a falsifiable scientific theory—a fact noted by
several commentators.
“BTFO,”
as some would say.
§ 3: AA
lies about the debate
In
addition to recasting Jack as a religious dogmatic, AA has also asserted
victory in retrospect in regards to certain empirical questions—for example, claiming in final response-video
that Jack was “forced” to concede to the ‘subjective value’ theory during the
debate, regarding the issue of the baker’s oven. Similar claims were made on
twitter and youtube:
AA
hasn’t yet been able to provide timestamps for these alleged instances of
concession, but other such claims are perhaps verifiable—for example:
This
is an odd claim, given that Jack repeatedly explained the way in which one
would calculate the socially-necessary unskilled labour-time required to
produce a pencil (here, here, here, and here). Perhaps AA has some other
pencil-related incident from the debate in mind…
In his final response-video, AA also claimed that Jack “hand-waved” the
LTV’s inability to explain things like art, and made a similar claim regarding
monopoly goods:
AA’s
claim is curious given that Jack repeatedly refuted this criticism during
the debate (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here): the LTV was only intended
to explain “a restricted set of goods that are available on the market,” which
is to say, “freely-reproducible goods,” rather than things such as art, services,
insurance premiums, and so on. Hence, criticising the LTV for not explaining non-freely-reproducible
goods is akin to criticising the Theory of Evolution for not explaining
gravity.
AA also seems to suggest that ‘equilibrium-prices’
and/or ‘value’ (in the Marxist sense) don’t exist in “reality” or “the real
world,” and hence, that the LTV is somehow falsified:
This is again odd, since
Jack explicitly
clarified during the debate that
value and equilibrium-prices “are part of reality”—once again, AA’s
retrospective claims are redundant. (Additionally, it would be absurd to
suggest that because ‘value’ and/or ‘equilibrium-prices’ don’t exist, that
therefore, the definitions are “wrong”—is the definition of a unicorn “wrong”
because unicorns don’t exist? AA continues to stumble from one absurdity to
another…)
Other than these specific revisions, AA also makes
generic claims about how Marx and the LTV were somehow erroneous:
But
once again, AA is putting the cart before the horse: a demonstration of the
falsity of the LTV was precisely his task during the debate, and after failing
at that task, he is merely reasserting an unsubstantiated claim.
All of this is particularly ironic given AA’s rhetoric
in an old video, in which he criticises
people for doing exactly what he’s done here—declaring victory without warrant:
Funnily enough, I was reading a book the
other day called Straight & Crooked Thinking—it’s about dirty tricks
in arguments, and how people often claim victory when they’ve done little if
anything to disprove their opponent.
In
the same video, AA further claims that his then-opponent engaged in
“anti-intellectual cherry-picking,” and that such tactics will only be
convincing to “the communist lunatics in his comments, delighting in a spot of
confirmation-bias and unfounded self-congratulation.” This is projection of the
highest order, given that AA has exactly described his own situation here: he
has claimed victory despite doing little if anything to disprove his opponent,
and only his biased followers are convinced by his revisionism on the matter.
In short, AA is both a revisionist and a hypocrite, and his retrospective
claims about the debate are either unsubstantiated or false.
§ 4: AA’s
excuses
During
the debate, AA claimed to have read all three volumes of Das Kapital,
and in the comments-section of the live-stream, he further claimed to have read
“all” of Marx’s works in general:
If
that weren’t enough, AA further claimed to have “written books on Marxist
theory,” in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to his various unsubstantiated
assertions about the LTV:
Regrettably,
AA has yet to divulge the titles of his alleged monographs, and due to privacy-concerns,
never will:
How
convenient.
In
any case, AA doubled-down on his claim to have read “all” of Marx in numerous
youtube-comments after the debate, and even claimed to have read some of Hagel as
well:
By making these claims, AA
was evidently attempting to furnish his credentials as a critic of Marxism, and
hence, to lend authority to his rejection of the LTV. The important point here
is AA’s attempt to claim knowledge or even expertise on the subject, which is
expressed even more directly in the following comment:
In
short, AA would have us believe that he’s read all of Marx (and even some
Hegel), and that he understands the LTV, and thus, that his rejection of the
theory is born from a position of knowledge. Given these self-awarded laurels,
AA’s bewilderment concerning the fundamental purpose of the LTV is difficult to
explain, as in the following exchange:
Jack: “How many times have we gone over the fact that the Labour Theory of
Value is not a theory of market-prices?”
AA: “So what does it explain?! What does it explain?!”
Jack: “It explains equilibrium-prices.”
Another
dramatic illustration of AA’s surprising ignorance regarding the basics of the
LTV occurred after AA claimed to have read all three volumes of Das Kapital,
whereupon Jack demanded: “Tell what c., v.,
and s. stand for, if you’ve read all three volumes of Capital—what
do those initials mean in the Labour Theory of Value?” In response to this
scrutiny, AA sheepishly admitted: “I can’t bloody remember
off the top of my head.” AA deeply resented this interrogation and humiliation,
and after the debate, he bitterly characterised it as a cheap, rhetorical,
“gotcha” trick:
AA
also attempts to account for his astounding
ignorance of the LTV (and c., v., and s. in particular) in
his final response-video, where he claims that he read Marx many
years ago, and hence, can’t be expected to have memorised every little detail.
AA thus tries to characterise c., v.,
and s. as unnecessary trivia known only to fanatics who “live and
breathe Marx every single day,” thereby minimising the significance of his ignorance.
The problem with this narrative is that c., v.,
and s. aren’t irrelevant minutæ from an obscure passage in Das
Kapital—in fact, they arguably constitute the central formula of the LTV,
given that constant capital + variable capital + surplus value
= VALUE. Claiming to have read Marx and understood the LTV without
knowing c., v., and s. is like claiming to have read and
understood Harry Potter without knowing who Voldemort is. In other words, AA
claims to have read all of Marx and comprehended the LTV, yet doesn’t even seem
to know the basics of the theory. Many commentators were quick to point out
this blatant discrepancy, and to disregard AA’s flimsy excuses:
AA’s
attempts to excuse his ignorance ultimately resulted in some rather strange
contortions, as he tried to explain how he came to a debate about the LTV to debate
the LTV, not the LTV…
In sum,
AA claims to have read all of Marx’s works, to have written books on Marxist
theory, and to have understood the LTV—yet somehow remains ignorant of the most
basic elements of the very theory which he is supposed to be contending, and
which he blithely dismissed as “emphatically wrong.”
§ 5: AA’s
hubris
Several
days after the debate, AA opined the following on twitter:
Putting
aside the irony of someone boasting about their humility, it’s interesting to
keep such rhetoric in mind when considering AA’s attitude toward the debate. With
the benefit of hindsight, a glaring discrepancy can be discerned between the
confidence of AA’s assertions and his ignorance on the subject-matter—or as one
commentator put it: “Judging by his
recent debate, I think AcademicAgent might be the worst example of the Dunning
Kruger effect I’ve ever seen.” If conservatives are indeed humble, then we can
only conclude that AA is not a conservative.
Prior to the debate, AA seemed quite upbeat: his
online reactionary echo-chamber had instilled him with a false sense of acumen
and knowledge, and in general, he fancied himself to be a scholar and a
gentleman. It was in high spirits that AA posted the following tweet, in which
he likens himself to Rocky—calculated to convey an air of confidence and
nonchalance:
Blinded
by hubris, AA happily tweeted the link to the live debate as it
commenced—blissfully unaware of what awaited him:
After
the debate, as AA limped back to his reactionary twitter safe-space (and the soothing reassurances of his sycophants), he
bitterly acknowledged his folly:
But
even in defeat, in the immediate aftermath of his humiliation and destruction,
AA’s pride was manifest: the implication of this tweet was that AA—a scholar
and a gentleman—had wasted his precious time attempting to reason with some
ignoramus. As we have already, this would become a common theme throughout AA’s
subsequent tweets and comments: desperate to save face, AA was already
attempting damage-control, by retrospectively reframing the debate and
impugning Jack’s motives and conduct. Indeed, AA even went so far as to
casually suggest to his subscribers that
watching the debate would be a waste of their time, because Jack is just a
sophist ideologue: “I wouldn’t in all honesty recommend watching the debate.” Unfortunately,
none but the most diehard of AA’s fans were buying this act.
This cycle of hubris—the classic trajectory of pride
and fall—was perfectly exemplified in the following tripartite tweet-saga.
First, there was an ominous herald, as one of AA’s followers warned him of his impending doom prior
to the debate:
Then,
there was blind confidence, as AA responded by smugly asserting that
the LTV is “emphatically wrong,” and thus, he had nothing to fear in the
upcoming debate:
Finally,
after the debate had run its course, AA’s follower responded to this cocky pre-debate boast
with a mournful reproach:
Such
was the tragedy of AcademicAgent.
§ 6: AA’s
cowardice
AA
seems to have a problem with people blocking their detractors on twitter—ostensibly,
he regards the practice as a symptom of cowardice or weakness. Consider the
following tweet, where AA describes someone
who blocked him as an “arch-coward”:
Or
consider this tweet, in which AA sarcastically
describes someone who blocked him as a “real intellectual”—clearly implying
that such behaviour is the opposite of that:
For
a final example, note the way in which AA
suggests that someone blocking him is a sign of their inability to address his
criticisms of their views: “She blocked me rather than answer by the way.”
In short,
AA clearly seems to think that blocking detractors is a sign that the blocker
in question is an anti-intellectual coward who can’t face criticisms. In light
of this, imagine my shock when AA blocked me, after I pointed out that he
didn’t seem to know the basics of Marxism:
AA has since unblocked many of his detractors, but his
cowardice continued to manifest in his refusal to engage with ideological
opponents, as we can see here:
AA
expressed a similar sentiment in a comment on youtube, where he vowed to
never again engage with Marxists:
This
point was reiterated in another comment, in which he also vowed
never to debate Jack again:
AA’s
excuse for this retreat was the claim that debating Marxists is a “complete
waste of time,” but this is suspicious given AA’s earlier confidence that the
LTV is “emphatically wrong.” This tension is also evident
in AA’s final response-video, in which he claimed that Marxists have no
arguments, reiterated his refusal to debate Jack,
and further declared that he will no longer
debate the LTV, and that he will no longer speak to Marxists, and that he will
not take any further questions on it, and that “it’s basically a settled issue,”
and that “it doesn’t even require debate—this is how an economy works.” If AA is
correct in these bold claims, then one would expect him to have no difficulty in
debating and humiliating Jack in particular and Marxists in general. But alas,
AA fled, leaving various “final” messages across youtube and twitter:
All
of this is particularly puzzling given that AA equates Marxists to “social justice
warriors,” given that both groups allegedly rely upon ad hominem attacks
in lieu of arguments. AA explicitly identifies this alleged reliance on
personal-attacks as a reason for his refusal to engage with Marxists anymore,
but mysteriously, he continues to hound SJWs on youtube and twitter. If SJWs
are just like Marxists, then why does AA attack the former and run from the
latter?
Summary
Before
we proceed to the funny reactions, here is a summary of what we have seen: (1)
AA continually equivocated on ‘value’ during his debate with Jack, and
subsequently committed to this equivocation by appealing to Semantic Realism
and other non-sequitur rationalisations; (2) AA doesn’t
understand and/or rejects the scientific method (3) AA lied about the
debate by claiming victory in retrospect, even though he was thoroughly
defeated; (4) AA lied about his knowledge of Marx and Marxism, and attempted
to excuse his ignorance of the LTV by misrepresenting fundamental elements of
the theory as mere trivia; (5) AA was blinded by hubris prior to the
debate, and expressed a confidence disproportionate to his knowledge and
capabilities; and finally, (6) AA is a coward who hypocritically blocked
numerous critics, and refuses to respond to his Marxist detractors. Overall, AA
exhibits a consistent ignorance of science in general and Marxism in
particular; he completely failed to substantiate his initial claim that the LTV
is “emphatically wrong,” and most of his compensatory ‘criticisms’ after the
debate were already refuted during the debate.
Addison
DeWitt would be ashamed.
§ 7: Funny
Reactions
Despite
AA’s desperate attempts to convince everyone everywhere that he wasn’t utterly
crushed by Jack during the debate, most of those who witnessed this spectacle
remain unconvinced. What follows is a choice selection of their reactions, from
youtube, twitter, and discord.