Economics Question

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Does the academic community accept leftist economics as legitimate forms of economics. Do economic and mathematical related people feel that leftist economics work in terms of numbers and formulas?

[ComradeRed]

Speaking from my reading in both economics and mathematics, "popular" academia rejects any and all forms of leftist economics. It is usually reformist economics called "welfare economics" and pretty passive and flavorless.

The most mathematical economic theory that I have seen would be the Neo-Ricardians. They are accepted more than leftist economics. I have toyed with the idea of have a Neo-Marxist economics based on Marxist and Neo-Ricardian economics, although I personally believe that something like complex systems theory would have to be introduced.

Neo-Ricardian economics uses linear algebra, matrices, and the like. It is hard for me to follow (and I'm a mathematician!), but I am looking at the urtext. I would suggest you look into finding a copy of Debunking Economics (specifically the chapter on the "Holy War over Capital") by Steve Keen for a gentler (yet still rigorous) introduction.

I have also looked into some of the "neo-Analytical Marxists". Unfortunately they have given up on economics and have simply adopted bourgeois economics. Needless to say, they're not anymore Marxist than I am a witch.

If you are good at math, you may want to try to formulate Das Kapital in math. I've started that just for the hell of it (and actually, I found it infinitely easier to explain Marx's economics through Chemistry's thermodynamics: entropy being the rate of exploitation, the delta H (change in enthalpy) being the surplus value gained by the capitalist, etc.).

Neo-Ricardian economics do not understand many of the finer points of Marxism, and although it is a fine tool, it needs to be integrated with all the mathematics we have (viz. chaos theory and complex systems theory).

This kind of went off topic, but you catch my drift: if leftist economics were to be accepted, we would have to do a hell of a lot of work to the pre-existing theories to "Leftify" them. I think that's what should be done, along with activism, etc. The problem is: people hate math.

I can't blame them, can you? Skool sucked all the fun out of it...and it is practically impossible to do it on your own without either the books or a really kick ass professor.

I digress again; the point remains: really advanced math is needed, and we need to base it on what has been done. That would be the only way to get it accepted, along with explaining everything we do in common, modern English (if that can't be done, forget the whole damn thing!).

[enigma2517]

That would be the only way to get it accepted, along with explaining everything we do in common, modern English (if that can't be done, forget the whole damn thing!).

Haha another jab at dialetics?

;)

I'm inclined to agree.

[ComradeRed]

Yes and no.

Yes on the one hand because dialectics are useless crap.

No on the other because Neo-Ricardian economics really does need to be formulated with complex systems theory, mathematical thermodynamics, and chaos theory. It also needs to be "tweaked" into a "Neo-Marxist" economic theory (or, if you want, "Mathematical Marxism", akin to "Mathematical biology", "Mathematical physics", etc.).

That should be the aim of Marxists right now: formulate Marxism in math.

[edit] If you are a young Marxist interested in helping formalize Marxism, go into Math and (if you want) physics (in addition to the math). Read as much heterodox economic literature as you can, criticize Neoclassical (and other vulgar) economics as rigorously (where math comes in handy!) as possible.

If Marxism is to become a science, it first has to be placed on a mathematical basis. That means 1. reformulate Historical materialism in terms of game theory, 2. formulate Marxist economics in terms of advanced mathematics (complex systems theory, chaos theory, chaotic nonlinear algebra, etc.) based off of Neo-Ricardian Economics.

Some of this has all ready been done by bourgeois institutions (Santa Fe Institute (http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/working-papers.php) is the most advanced amongst them). We have to make it revolutionary.

[Morpheus]

The radical left, including leftist economics, has different degrees of acceptance in different parts of academia. Sociology and history have strong Marxist & radical leftist sections. Economics is dominated by the right-wing neoclassical paradigm. Political science has some radical leftists, but also many conservatives & reformists. The natural sciences tend more towards reformism, AFAIK. This varies by school, as well (some are more leftist than others). 50 years ago the left, except for maybe parts of the reformist left, was completely rejected by academia but since the '60s there has been a sucessfull effort by leftists to overturn bourgeois dominance in parts of it and bring in radical leftist theory. Among other things, academic history has been completely revolutionized by this process.

[Djehuti]

The subject of political economy is today dominated by vulgar economy and have been so for a while. Totally uninteresting and totally useless.

International working group on value theory
http://www.iwgvt.org

Outline on Political Economy list
OPE-L is a small, closed list of Marxists who have been discussing controversial issues in political economy since September, 1995.
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/ (interesting read)

[anomaly]

One will find that capitalists have but one objection to Marx's entire proposal. In fact, my bourgeois econ teacher brought it up, just as one would predict. Most Marxists agree that there are two basic principles upon which Marxism is founded: surplus value and the labor theory of value. If one agrees with both, one is probably a Marxist. In liberal economics, the labor theory of value is too often misunderstood. If one looks at it not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, one begins to realize its truth.

That is easy enough, but surplus value, though it is much easier to understand, is much more controversial. If this surplus value were truly given to the workers as repayment, as Marx seemed to argue, the incentive for 'entrepeneurs' to invent, create, and build up capital would be severely reduced, that is, according to bourgeois economists. What they leave out is the fact that 'income', as we know it, as money, would be abolished. That is, Marx did not, in fact, argue that surplus value be given to workers, but rather he argued for a system in which there is no surplus value, where there are no rich 'entrepeneurs' ruling over their herds of workers, but rather all are workers and all live and work together. If we remember that communism eliminates the concept of 'money' from of the equation, the principle of surplus value, and the solution inferenced from it, becomes much clearer.