what's wrong with economics

[ska invita]

I think you have to step outside of economics to adopt an anti-capitalist ideology that talks about economic relationships/actions. Probably getting a bit semantic at this point tbh.
In any case, as you say the real world economics both in academia and elsewhere is so entirely capitalist (and not just that, but dominated by the kind of neo-classical nonsense I was talking about in the rest of my post) that even if there is the possibility of anti-capitalist economics ideologies they aren't really relevant.

to me Marx was an economist and Das Kapital is a book on economics. To disagree on that would be a point of semantics I think. I always imagined economics students doing a class on Kapital, but I guess that was naive of me.

I think the reason marx maintains his importance is precisely because Kapital got down to the 'science' of capitalist economics and was written from what i would consider an economics methodology. Likewise Piketty has made a noise because its a proper economics book.

I think this is exactly "whats wrong with economics", there needs to be more left critique of capitalism from within economics. The best writer Ive read on modern economics is Harry Shutt, particularly The Trouble with Capitalism -he's a economist with a working history in dealing with African development money amongst other things IRC, and his critique is one firmly made in economic language and terminology (broadly he says that perpetual growth is impossible without inevitable boom and bust and an economic model that doesnt rely on perpetual growth needs to be formulated)

so called Cultural Marxists have done a lot in academia, i cant see why left economists cant do the same.

---------------
i do wish the theory forum would be moved up the top with P&P.

 

[phildwyer]

to me Marx was an economist and Das Kapital is a book on economics.

Not at all. It is a critique of economics. The clue is the subtitle.

 

[phildwyer]

i do wish the theory forum would be moved up the top with P&P.

Seconded.

 

[phildwyer]

BigTom is thinking of the Physiocrats, who held that agriculture is the source of all wealth.

They weren't the first economists though. That dubious honor belongs to the English political economists of the mid-seventeenth century, especially the famous "3 Ms"--Mun, Malynes and Misselden.

 

[butchersapron]

to me Marx was an economist and Das Kapital is a book on economics. To disagree on that would be a point of semantics I think. I always imagined economics students doing a class on Kapital, but I guess that was naive of me.

I think the reason marx maintains his importance is precisely because Kapital got down to the 'science' of capitalist economics and was written from what i would consider an economics methodology. Likewise Piketty has made a noise because its a proper economics book.

I think this is exactly "whats wrong with economics", there needs to be more left critique of capitalism from within economics. The best writer Ive read on modern economics is Harry Shutt, particularly The Trouble with Capitalism -he's a economist with a working history in dealing with African development money amongst other things IRC, and his critique is one firmly made in economic language and terminology (broadly he says that perpetual growth is impossible without inevitable boom and bust and an economic model that doesnt rely on perpetual growth needs to be formulated)

so called Cultural Marxists have done a lot in academia, i cant see why left economists cant do the same.

---------------
i do wish the theory forum would be moved up the top with P&P.

The whole point of Capital was to have done with economics. It is not a work of economics. Have you really read it? The last thing it does is get down to the science of capitalist economics.

The reason Marx retains his importance is because he accurately described how and why the system of capital accumulation came to its current dominance - and how and why the ideology of economics served to justify and naturalise this.

What are these cultural marxists?

 

[butchersapron]

They weren't the first economists though. That dubious honor belongs to the English political economists of the mid-seventeenth century, especially the famous "3 Ms"--Mun, Malynes and Misselden.

News to John Hales.

 

[phildwyer]

News to John Hales.

Never heard of him.

 

[phildwyer]

The whole point of Capital was to have done with economics.

This is the vital point to remember. It is, as the subtitle reminds us, A Critique of Political Economy (i.e. economics). Marx's basic premise was that economics was pure ideology. He was right.

 

[J Ed]

The whole point of Capital was to have done with economics. It is not a work of economics.

What is it a work of? What would you call it? What about people who call themselves Marxist economists who have come after Marx?

 

[butchersapron]

What is it a work of? What would you call it? What about people who call themselves Marxist economists who have come after Marx?

A critique of political economy. Who do you mean? Which of these later marxist economists didn't recognise that capital was a critique of political economy?

Is a book attacking religion a theistic book? Was Marx's analysis of how and why religion is born and how it sustains itself theistic?

 

[J Ed]

NM, was confused about what you meant.

 

[phildwyer]

What is it a work of? What would you call it?

An attack on economics.

FFS Butchers and I agree on this. It must be right.

 

[ska invita]

The whole point of Capital was to have done with economics. It is not a work of economics. Have you really read it? The last thing it does is get down to the science of capitalist economics.

yes it was to have done with capitalist economics, but in order to make the case it analysed capitalist economics through using economic terms. To me thats still economics.

The USSR still had to deal with production, distribution and consumption of goods, which is what economics is fundamentally about.

What are these cultural marxists?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?cli...&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl

 

[butchersapron]

yes it was to have done with capitalist economics, but in order to make the case it analysed capitalist economics through using economic terms. To me thats still economics.

The USSR still had to deal with production, distribution and consumption of goods, which is what economics is fundamentally about.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=cultural marxists&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl

No, not capitalist economics - all economics, by arguing that all economics is, by definition capitalist economics. Have you actually read it? Are you going to tell marx that he mistitled the book he spent decades on?

What does the USSR have to do with anything?

 

[ska invita]

its not that contentious - looks heres a wiki page called Marxian economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists

 

[butchersapron]

its not that contentious - looks heres a wiki page called Marxian economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists

What's not that contentious? That the book called Capital: a critique of political economy is a critique of political economy? Have you read it or not?

What do you think Marx meant by this?

In France and in England the bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic

 

[ska invita]

What's not that contentious?

the notion that there is such thing as a Marxian economics. There will always be production, distribution and consumption of goods, and under whatever system this occurs the study of it can be called economics. Sounds like you are saying economics=capitalism. If so my definition differs to yours.

 

[butchersapron]

the notion that there is such thing as a Marxian economics. There will always be production, distribution and consumption of goods, and under whatever system this occurs the study of it can be called economics. Sounds like you are saying economics=capitalism. If so my definition differs to yours.

I think your refusal to answer the question as to whether you have read capital or not speaks for itself doesn't it? if you have read it then you have woefully misunderstood it. If you haven't, then you really need to stop telling everyone (including marx) that they're misreading it and actually go read the bloody thing.

Why do people seem to feel the need to do this with Capital? I mean, Moby Dick, sure, you can bluff that one, but Capital? No chance.

 

[ska invita]

whats the bluff? if it makes a difference to you i havent read it but only read readings of it - you're missing the point:
again, there will always be production, distribution and consumption of goods, and under whatever system, capitalist/communist/other, this occurs, the study of it can be called economics.
Im not the only one who considers Capital a book that can be categorised as economics. Look how many people use the term Marxist Economics https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q="Marxist Economics"&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl
its utterly commonplace

 

[phildwyer]

Marx's point is that to isolate one set of human activities as "Economics" is absurd.

There is no such thing as the economy.

 

[phildwyer]

Sounds like you are saying economics=capitalism.

That's what Marx says.

 

[ska invita]

The gift economy of tribal Papua New Guinea is an economy. The study of it is economics.

 

[phildwyer]

whats the bluff? if it makes a difference to you i havent read it but only read readings of it -

Respect and all, but it does make a difference. BA is right about this--you have to read it to understand it. Most people don't, including most of the "experts" you cite.

 

[phildwyer]

The gift economy of tribal Papua New Guinea is an economy. The study of it is economics.

No dude. Economics is unique to the Western Enlightenment. It was consciously designed to rationalize capitalism.

 

[ska invita]

No dude. Economics is unique to the Western Enlightenment. It was consciously designed to rationalize capitalism.

That may be historically accurate for how the discipline was started but its a false limit to the subjects scope

 

[8115]

What discipline does the study of markets (say) fall into, economics naysayers.

 

[phildwyer]

That may be historically accurate for how the discipline was started but its a false limit

You're arguing with Marx not me.

 

[phildwyer]

What discipline does the study of markets (say) fall into, economics naysayers.

Ethics.

 

[elbows]

 

[8115]

Not liking economics because of it's applications is like not liking nucleur physics because of the atom bomb and radioactive waste. Science including social sciences should strive to be value neutral. Which denying the validity of economics is not.