Advice for Radical Economics students?

[Comrade_Sephiroth]

Hi, I decided to choose perhaps the most daring of majors for radical-minded students - Economics. Do you know of any good references for countering popular arguments in favor of the classical market equilibrium theory and the commodified labor market?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Personally I found doing this to be both painful, and largely unproductive, however that was at more remedial levels.

I have several personal favourite lines of argument, but it would be good if you could give me a few typical texts where these arguments originate from, or examples of the arguments themselves.

I can give you a brief layout of one radical arguemt that I have not seen a response to yet. If you have questions please ask, because this assumes a lot of thing that I can probably explain, but left out as not completely essential for a jist:

One of the main criticisms of collectivism is the reduction in supply resulting from the abscence of economic compulsion. In other words workers don't need to work (at least hard) and uncompetitive companies do not become more efficient.

This relies upon the assumption that this does not occur in capitalism. I would however beg to differ. Just as the excuse of human greed can only truly be used to cover a section (however large) of the world, human goodness can be used in the same way. Not everyone gravitates towards the accumulation of wealth, and apathy comes in after a certain point. People want to reach a certain level, and then are satisfied.

This means that competition isn't truly assured by capitalism, and that "greed" is not an absolute stopping point for collectivism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am killing time, so may as well add some more, less confusing in a new post.

Capitalism relies upon the division of labour, and I don't think anyone would deny the use of this, at least to some extent. I would argue however that the division of labour is only really appropriate in a collectivist economy.

I am sure you are aware of the problems of structual unemployment, and over specialisation of labour. I say this only arises when competition is combined with a specialised work force (as occurs when the division of labour is used). I will give an example: A car factory produces cars, but has to close because a factory in a whole new area can do it cheaper. Assuming that this is a larger employer, there are sever knock on effects. On a more micro economical level, the individual families suffer, and therefore the local area. There is an infastructure set up for a kind of labour that will not required (because of cheaper alternatives) and therefore is useless (or not as useful).

Of course the opposite is true where the labour has moved to. A new infastructure will likely be in place, and local business will do well as a result of increased employment etc...

My point is that this shift is not neccesary in collectivism. Materials will be saved, and specialisation can continue to increase productivity in a secure manor. Production can occur where it is best, and surplus resources can be placed into either increasing "sufficient" production, or could be laid fallow. What thos means is not that important, what is important is that global production could meet a sustainable equilibrium, avoiding the loss, and human suffering resulting from constantly shifting production. It also creates a better environment for long ter investment.

This is the more complex argument in my oppinion, and I would be better writing a more concise argument if you are interested, or can't see where I am coming from.

[ComradeRed]

You may also want to brush up on systemics and linear/nonlinear systems of equations. If you are serious about this (and this means dealing with people with IQs rivalling rocks), you should read up on Piero Sraffa and the Neo-Ricardian movement.

One word, though, do not focus on "equilibrium" economics, because the economy is rarely (if ever) in equilibrium. That is one of the serious problems with Neoclassical economics (and for the love of Newton, don't join the Neoclassical economists!).

You may want to try "The New School" for economics or UMass Amherst.

If you want to approach radical economics scientifically, take more math courses than a math major. I'm sure a number of people are reading this thinking that I am saying this because I "love math", or because I'm "for metaphysics" or whatever. But things like graph theory, group theory, category theory, etc. are really useful!

Also, with advanced math, you can create evolutionary equations. A system of nonlinear, evolutionary equations would adequately describe the economy.

Once again, this is not going to be fun in games. This is going to be the most frustrating thing that you'll enter. I'm just warning you.

Read Debunking Economics by Steve Keen, he does a cracker-jack job on dissecting the flaws of Neo-classical economics.

Also, here is something which you can find useful, something called instrumentalism from math and science. Basically, a model with a certain set of assumptions works only when those assumptions are true! This means that (inductively) if Neoclassical economics doesn't produce accurate models it's because they have a wrong theory.

The General Equilibrium theory is nonsense that is internally inconsistent when time is added. Keen elaborates on this point more.

It is perhaps the best book you could read on the subject.

Good luck!

[Comrade_Sephiroth]

Red, have you actually done the advanced math and verified Marxist economics this way? If so I'd like to see a sample of it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:54 AM
One word, though, do not focus on "equilibrium" economics, because the economy is rarely (if ever) in equilibrium. That is one of the serious problems with Neoclassical economics (and for the love of Newton, don't join the Neoclassical economists!).

Despite my last point I do agree. There are far too many external factors to make this truly possible, or even desireable. I suggested an equilibrium as an appeal to a certain school of thought, although I only brushed over it and did not address it at all in my first post.

Although mathmatics is a great method of arguing, sometimes qualitative arguments are required to supplement or replace maths, especially when you are talking to someone that does not have the best grounding in it.

Also, at least in my experience, most of the arguments presented against collectivism are not done so in quantitative form, partially because there is no frame of reference, and partially because as an almost "non-issue" your average Joe wouldn't bother. There may be exceptions as CR as suggested, and he is the one to speak to about them, but being able to debate through dialogue is still an essential skill not to be underestimated.

[Comrade_Sephiroth]

The basic four arguments that come to my mind are:

1. The real world is infinitely complex. No simplistic equation can explain all variables in the economy, even in the "static" sense. When you move to evolutionary mathematics the problem becomes ever clearer.

2. Even mainstream economists are becoming aware of market imperfections. The problem of "asymmetric information" means that consumers and/or producers (this refers also to labor "producers" or workers, and the employers are "labor consumers") do not have the same knowledge of the economy and the markets, and may be able to deceive a more ignorant side. Joseph Stiglitz, an economist fired from the World Bank for his views, has emphasized that market problems are pervasive, even to the point where Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' no longer applies in some cases.

3. Don't confuse ends with means. Why are we preassuming that our goal is to maximize output (GDP), when our most noble goal is to maximize economic happiness (something that must acknowledge equality, wealth distribution, and socioeconomic hierarchy?) Who cares if the economy grows 10 percent per year, especially if the little people are worse off? This argument is actually a good one for debating against proponents of hardcore Stalinism.

4. Economists have often ignored variables that have a real effect on the outcome, especially variables dealing with market power, class inequality, owner/worker struggles, and corporate influence on local and national politics. I believe hierarchical power DOES introduce a new element into human behavior, simply because it causes people to rationally suppress those desires and interests which, because of power differentials caused by capitalistic ownership, are at odds with the interests of the elite.

[ComradeRed]

So we all agree...the economy is too complex to be explained by simple linear equations (or even simple calculus) :lol:


Originally posted by Comrade_Sephiroth+--> (Comrade_Sephiroth) Red, have you actually done the advanced math and verified Marxist economics this way? If so I'd like to see a sample of it.[/b] I have been working on verifying Marxist economics this way. There are a large number of things that need attention (e.g. explain Historical Materialism in terms of Game Theory, where the rules of the game evolve depending the situation, and this affects the teams' performances, etc.; the need to clarify class with group theory; finding whether it matters whether labor is the source of capital or not, and whether this would affect the collapse of capitalism; etc.).

As I have suggested elsewhere, it would be very prudent to form a "Marxist economic think tank"...somewhere where we could discuss these sort of ideas.

There is a lot to be done if you look for problems and then fix them. As I stated before, this is not fun in games...it's going to be arduous work (especially if you don't go to a school that teaches Marxist economics!).

I'm writing a brief survey of heterodox economics, trying to synthesize them together (for economic students who know no better alternative to Neoclassical economics). I'll PM it to you when I'm done (it should give you some ideas).

Also...economists aren't "becoming" increasingly ignorant of the "inner workings" of capitalism, they never knew it!


Hegemonicretribution

Although mathmatics is a great method of arguing, sometimes qualitative arguments are required to supplement or replace maths, especially when you are talking to someone that does not have the best grounding in it. If we are to make a science out of anything, it is necessary to first place it on a real and mathematical basis.

The qualitative perspective of a theory is important inasmuchas there is adequate math to back it up!

This actually exposes the philistinism of Neoclassical economics...they openly admit in their equations that marginal utility equates to price! A nonsensical conclusion by any means!

Further, the qualitative character of a theory can be expounded by abstract algebra and category theory. It is, in my opinion, the best way to outline something rigorously.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You may want to try "The New School" for economics or UMass Amherst.

That's where I went to college. I didn't stay around too long.

Apparently the 'Marxist' professors there never heard the expression 'an ounce of pratice is worth a tonne of theory.'

[ComradeRed]

Yes, they are rather decoupled from reality...but is it better to deal with them or is it better to deal with the neoclassical nonsense?

If this fellow is really serious about economics those are the schools s/he should be looking at.