11-05-2013, 08:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2013, 09:16 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Yea. And whenever the economy crashes, the economists are left scratching their heads asking "what went wrong?" Nothing went wrong - booms and busts are an INHERENT feature of the capitalist system, as Marx accurately observed some 150 years ago. But of course, they would never admit this for the obvious political implications, despite it being proved as empirical fact throughout capitalisms' entire history, because it would shatter the fragile ideological framework which NCE stands upon. In this sense, economists become trapped in a false dilemma - during times of "booms", capitalism is infallible. When the bust comes, disproving the notion of infallibility, they throw out the scapegoat of their choosing or whatever is trendy at the time (right now Big Gubbament seems the most popular scapegoat for capitalisms failures), as if the bust isn't inherent to the system. So, the sciences themselves are shaped by capitalism, so that economists never even question the actual role capitalism has. The whole framework of Neoclassical economics is that it is designed to 'navigate' the system, rather than seeking a true scientific understanding of capitalism.
Marxian economics > Neoclassical economics. And that is because the former is grounded in a rigorous, scientific, honest and empirical observation of how capitalism actually works, and not in ideology. Marxian economics of course isn't perfect, and like any scientific inquiry, it has had to make readjustments or hypothesis when the material conditions do not reflect assumptions. But its framework is still very sound, and it has a far better track record than NCE could ever hope to; yet due to the ideological outgrowths of capitalist psychology that are necessary to sustain its own existence, Marxian economics naturally HAS TO be treated as a heterodox (regardless of how useful or accurate it is). Or, more simply put, NCE is 'economic idealism', and Marxian economics is 'economic materialism'.
Marxian economics > Neoclassical economics. And that is because the former is grounded in a rigorous, scientific, honest and empirical observation of how capitalism actually works, and not in ideology. Marxian economics of course isn't perfect, and like any scientific inquiry, it has had to make readjustments or hypothesis when the material conditions do not reflect assumptions. But its framework is still very sound, and it has a far better track record than NCE could ever hope to; yet due to the ideological outgrowths of capitalist psychology that are necessary to sustain its own existence, Marxian economics naturally HAS TO be treated as a heterodox (regardless of how useful or accurate it is). Or, more simply put, NCE is 'economic idealism', and Marxian economics is 'economic materialism'.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)