A problem in economics classes

[Kingpin]

Usually in one of the first few lectures, and definitely on the first exam and in the introductory chapter of the textbooks, we are presented with 3 economists and this description of them:

Adam Smith: "The Invisible Hand", the Wealth of Nations, Free Market, No government control over the economy. Freedom of opportunity.

John Keynes: "Mixed Economy", Private Enterprise with some government ownership or regulation. A balance.

Karl Marx: "Communism", complete government control and ownership, no free enterprise, government sets prices and restricts free market.

Then there will be a picture of either Lenin or a Soviet symbol explaining why "complete government ownership" failed in the 20th century and why a mixture of free market with regulations is generally the best system.

With such an ahistorical and unscientific analysis of these three individuals and the socio-economic structures they talked about, is it any surprise that revolutionary leftist theory is so misunderstood in theory and praxis among the youth today?

[Widerstand]

With such an ahistorical and unscientific analysis of these three individuals and the socio-economic structures they talked about, is it any surprise that revolutionary leftist theory is so misunderstood in theory and praxis among the youth today?

Not really, no.

It makes sense though. I would guess the majority of economics teaching personnel (in the Western cultures) are people with an affinity towards capitalist economies, in the same vein as most economic publications are decidedly pro economic liberalism. Not to mention that a lot of economics, politics and history teaching personnel have a strict pro-bourgeois democracy attitude, too. In some places they are even required to.

The worst part is that not only do they misrepresent Marx, they even misrepresent Adam Smith (http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm).

[The Idler]

Its an easy simplification but yes, grossly inaccurate and seemingly more prevalent in American education to equate Marxism with complete government ownership.

[AK]

I'd really like to see proof of Karl Marx in his later years (that means you can't bring up stupid things he wrote when he was younger, OIers) supporting complete government control of the economy.

[NecroCommie]

Suddenly I wanted to read wealth of nations. I didn't know Smith was so much against extreme division of labour and nationalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'd really like to see proof of Karl Marx in his later years (that means you can't bring up stupid things he wrote when he was younger, OIers) supporting complete government control of the economy.You mean the younger years in which he became a communist during the writing of an attack on the political state, and criticized capitalist 'democracies' for not being democratic enough?

[AK]

You mean the younger years in which he became a communist during the writing of an attack on the political state, and criticized capitalist 'democracies' for not being democratic enough?
I'm talking about the 10 planks of communism that are always misinterpreted by right-wingers and taken completely out of context - even though Marx eventually ended up disagreeing with them later iirc.

[bailey_187]

The Adam Smith part is also wrong, or atleast a very simplistic reading of Smith. I cant find my copy of Adam Smith in Beijing, so i cant most any of the quotes :( , i will try to find my note book though and post them.

[ZeroNowhere]

True, the 'no government control' bit is certainly inaccurate.


I'm talking about the 10 planks of communism that are always misinterpreted by right-wingers and taken completely out of context - even though Marx eventually ended up disagreeing with them later iirc.Then they could just use the immediate demands drawn up by Guesde, which Marx did not oppose in principle (although he did have problems with some), or stuff like this:

In treating of the laws of inheritance, we necessarily suppose that private property in the means of production continues to exist. If it did no longer exist among the living, it could not be transferred from them, and by them, after their death. All measures, in regard to the right of inheritance, can therefore only relate to a state of social transition, where, on the one hand, the present economical base of society is not yet transformed [ie. is still capitalist], but where, on the other hand, the working masses have gathered strength enough to enforce transitory measures calculated to bring about an ultimate radical change of society.

Considered from this standpoint, changes of the laws of inheritance form only part of a great many other transitory measures tending to the same end.

These transitory measures, as to inheritance, can only be:

a. Extension of the inheritance duties already existing in many states, and the application of the funds hence derived to purposes of social emancipation.

b. Limitation of the testamentary right of inheritance, which -- as distinguished from the intestate or family right of inheritance -- appears as arbitrary and superstitious exaggeration even of the principles of private property themselves.Although, to be fair, the second was a resolution, and may not be his full views. The report of his actual arguments on the matter would be consistent with the above beliefs, although it does not include them.

Ultimately, I don't think that the 10 planks are any stronger an argument for Marx's ultimate aim being government control of everything (especially given Engels' explicit rejection of the idea of them as ends), and a far stronger argument for the right-wingers would be this couplet from Marx's early poetry:

And Culture thus emerges
As soon as Man starts using purges.

[Dean]

Adam Smith specifically believed in using the government to regulate the "invisible hand" which he viewed as flawed and potentially socially destructive:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199303--.htm

Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally -- and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces.

Further, he felt that the interests of the capitalist class was very clearly at odds with the interests of the public:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

I shouldn't even need to point out the inconsistency about Marx in the OP.

[Aesop]

Another problem that tends to be prevelent in economic classes, is that pupils they tend to see economics as having different systems rather than processes.
Meaning that if one takes the view that economics as a product of different systems rather than processes pupils fail to see capitalism itself is the problem, and tend to think that only certain types of capitalism are problems.
In addition the lack of historical evidence in economics is also problemactic, for example the USA had one point has a tariff tax of 70% on goods from aboard, the historicals shows that the free-market does not lead to economic development

[Revolution starts with U]

You think if a teacher announced himself an open socialist, that the reactionary parents would drive him out town with the proverbial torch and pitchfork?

[Die Rote Fahne]

There is very little understanding of Marxian economics by any economics professors in America.

[NecroCommie]

There seems to be very little understanding of economics at all by anyone in america.
(as a rough generalization, many important critics are americans.)

[Left-Reasoning]

This is a terrible oversimplification.