Studying bourgeois economics

[manic expression]

I'm trying to decide if it's a worthwhile experience to take a class in capitalist economics. I've attended a class and read part of the textbook, and it basically praises capitalism and presents the market economy as the best option (as I expected).

Is it worth it? Should leftists take an opportunity to learn about bourgeois economics?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

i asked ComradeRed a while back if i should do a bourgeois economics course. He is our resident einstien with regards to economics, and he said it would be a massive waste of time.

I would suggest sending him a pm as he would be able to answer all your quiries.

I think the classes are more ideology than anything else.

[вор в законе]

Knowledge is always useful and I would advice people to get informed about bourgeois economics because that, accompanied by your own 'marxist' analysis, would make it easier to debunk them during your arguments. All in all, knowledge is power, you have nothing to lose.

[RGacky3]

People talk abot leftists people idialistic, you should study Capitalist theory, talk about pie in the sky.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:48 pm
i asked ComradeRed a while back if i should do a bourgeois economics course. He is our resident einstien with regards to economics, and he said it would be a massive waste of time.
Its never a "massive waste of time" to educate yourself on something. And knowing capitalism inside and out couldn't hurt for an anti-capitalist. Certainly gives them more credibility in the eyes of some people.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

right i agree

but..

read marxist criticisms of capitalism

you wont get the nonsence you would by doing a course.

I really need ComradeRed to explain it.

But, like marxism, economics is a social science, not an orthodox science.

So, many things that you will learn as fact, will be dogma.

honesly, i think picking up a book on economics would be enough.

Try doing something useful like history or one of the sciences.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+January 16, 2007 09:19 pm--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ January 16, 2007 09:19 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 11:48 pm
i asked ComradeRed a while back if i should do a bourgeois economics course. He is our resident einstien with regards to economics, and he said it would be a massive waste of time.
Its never a "massive waste of time" to educate yourself on something. And knowing capitalism inside and out couldn't hurt for an anti-capitalist. Certainly gives them more credibility in the eyes of some people. [/b]
So, by your reckoning, studying Aristotlean physics is not a waste of time.

Well, speaking as a physicist, it is a massive waste of time. Lesson to be learned: just because you are studying something does not make it worth while.

This is especially true with bourgeois economics since it has been demonstrated rigorously to be internally inconsistent under its own assumptions! That is a phenomenal waste of time!

If you are going to study economics, I'd begin with differential calculus so you can quickly detect where things go awry horribly. That's a big IF too, since there are all ready a vast collection of criticisms of bourgeois economics out there all ready (a good compendium of them for the layperson is Debunking Economics by Steve Keen).

IN SHORT: don't study bourgeois economics. If you are going to become a critic of it, study math then introductory microeconomics; and a good collection of criticisms of bourgeois economics is Debunking Economics which dissects bourgeois economics critically.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:47 am
So, by your reckoning, studying Aristotlean physics is not a waste of time.

Well, speaking as a physicist, it is a massive waste of time. Lesson to be learned: just because you are studying something does not make it worth while.

This is especially true with bourgeois economics since it has been demonstrated rigorously to be internally inconsistent under its own assumptions! That is a phenomenal waste of time!

If you are going to study economics, I'd begin with differential calculus so you can quickly detect where things go awry horribly. That's a big IF too, since there are all ready a vast collection of criticisms of bourgeois economics out there all ready (a good compendium of them for the layperson is Debunking Economics by Steve Keen).

IN SHORT: don't study bourgeois economics. If you are going to become a critic of it, study math then introductory microeconomics; and a good collection of criticisms of bourgeois economics is Debunking Economics which dissects bourgeois economics critically.
Studying Aristotlean physics IS a waste of time. You know, that isn't a very good comparison. By any single scientist who studies physics, its debunked. The end, over, its wrong, and we know that.

Studying how capitalism works isn't the same. In a scientific sense, it isn't "wrong" (nor right), that comes down to your approach to the world and how you feel humans should work to make it. Why not say any philosophy which might seem stupid or nonsensical to us as individuals is a "waste of time?" Your argument only works in its sensationalist approach.

So we should only study those things we disagree with, that WE feel makes sense to US? Thats utter nonsense. This kind of shit is what makes us look self-riteous and arrogant. Theres no point in making ourselves look like assholes.

[ComradeRed]

Studying Aristotlean physics IS a waste of time. You know, that isn't a very good comparison. Actually, it's a better comparison than it seems. In both cases, they appear to describe reality quite well...whereas the empirical data directly contradicts both theories.


Studying how capitalism works isn't the same. You're right...it's ok to toss aside reality to study capitalism.


In a scientific sense, it isn't "wrong" (nor right), that comes down to your approach to the world and how you feel humans should work to make it. No, bourgeois economics is internally inconsistent. That makes it wrong!

When a theory, paradigm, whatever fails to explain all phenomena occurring in its field, then it is definitely wrong.

Hell, even ignoring reality and using the static, equilibrium models there are serious problems! That's the entire point Sraffa makes in his entire works.

I've pointed this out in other threads (see my Critique of Bourgeois Economics (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t56640.html) for a summary of the Sraffian critique of bourgeois economics).


So we should only study those things we disagree with, that WE feel makes sense to US? Thats utter nonsense. This kind of shit is what makes us look self-riteous and arrogant. Theres no point in making ourselves look like assholes. No, you're right. Studying theories that directly contradict reality are well worth it!

Look at the thriving field of alchemy :lol:

[shadowed by the secret police]

If you take that class, mate, you will only be deeply indoctrinated by the propaganda system. There is no such thing as markets. It's pure propaganda. Does U.S. corporations believe in free enterprise? When a huge company goes bankrupt because of falling profit does that company go the way of the weak and dissolve? Of course not. The U.S. taxpayer bail them out via the nanny state (socialism)--- tax breaks, grants low-interest loans, etc. That doesn't look like free enterprise to me.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+January 17, 2007 05:19 am--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ January 17, 2007 05:19 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 11:48 pm
i asked ComradeRed a while back if i should do a bourgeois economics course. He is our resident einstien with regards to economics, and he said it would be a massive waste of time.
Its never a "massive waste of time" to educate yourself on something. And knowing capitalism inside and out couldn't hurt for an anti-capitalist. Certainly gives them more credibility in the eyes of some people. [/b]
All state or private education is ideology but ideology is inescapable. It's pointless to take a course in anything wether left, right, capitalist, socialist....... Educate yourself learn from life.

[More Fire for the People]

No, at least not orthodox bourgeois economics, I would say bits of the heterodox schools have offered advancements in political economy but the fundamental outlook of bourgeois economics is just plain wrong.

[Demogorgon]

Yes and no. It will expand your knowledge and if yu pick a good place to study it (you can probably rule out anywhere in North America) you will be able to learn from Marxist Economists (most European Universities have a few).

On the other hand even with that you will still be subjected to rather a lot of ideology. It isn't pure indoctrination like some people think, but fashions come and go in economics, and in universities a lot of them are very taken with the Austrian school.

I studied economics for six years but eventually moved onto greener (or should that be redder?) pastures. I will say though. I feel my understanding of socialism and my absolute conviction that it is correct was heavily re-inforced by studying economics. I saw a lot of holes in capitalist theory that I simply would not have seen otherwise and of course now much better understand the economic arguments for socialism.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 pm
Educate yourself learn from life.
I like that.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+January 18, 2007 04:08 am--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ January 18, 2007 04:08 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 02:25 pm
Educate yourself learn from life.
I like that. [/b]
Thanks it's clearly the only way forward

[Hit The North]

ComradeRed:


No, you're right. Studying theories that directly contradict reality are well worth it!

They are worth studying if, like bourgeois economics, but unlike Aristotelean physics, they determine human behaviour and act as a justification for the prevailing order. In other words, any doctrine which has a social power is worth studying no matter how irrational or logically incoherent it is.

Economic theory has a historical and necessary connection to psychology - it is a theory of psychological behaviour. I'd advise the comrade to read Adam Smith's 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' to understand the connection and to get an insight into the bourgeois view of 'human nature'.

Moreover, forms of economic modeling are being applied to other social sciences in order to explain behaviour such as socioeconomics (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionomics). Again these theories apply particular assumption about human nature which are rooted in the neo-classical school.

All ruling classes have their grand ideological narratives through which they justify and reproduce their legitimacy. Previous ruling classes have had religion. The modern bourgeoisie has economics.

Know your enemy. Know what he thinks, how he thinks and how he applies his thinking. Then you stand a chance of defeating him.

However, I would council against taking a formal economics course. I did a 1st year economics course once: two semesters of total, turgid inconsequential bollocks which I'll never get back.

As other comrades have pointed out, you'd do a better job of learning it yourself - or even better, in tandem with other leftists.

In fact, I propose ComradeRed to initiate a RevLeft study group on bourgeois economics ;)

[ComradeRed]

They are worth studying if, like bourgeois economics, but unlike Aristotelean physics, they determine human behaviour and act as a justification for the prevailing order. Perhaps you should be thinking while using your bourgeois tools "How can I really use this?"

Like how the hell can anyone measure utility besides a boolean valued function! The problem is that you need real numbers...not a subset of them ({0,1}).

Holy hell, there goes the paradigm! :lol:

But no, you are right...it's still useful :rolleyes:


Economic theory has a historical and necessary connection to psychology - it is a theory of psychological behaviour. The bourgeoisie have defined economics as the science of scarcity...they neglect to mention that production and distribution of commodities is relatively the entire field.

"Psychology" is its own field for a reason! Unless you mix up the dependent and independent variables, one of the fatal flaws of bourgeois economics.

You see, the consumers are not the chief concern of economics. The production of commodities ought to be; that is where value is created and a number of other "minor" things like wage come in.


I&#39;d advise the comrade to read Adam Smith&#39;s &#39;The Theory of Moral Sentiments&#39; to understand the connection and to get an insight into the bourgeois view of &#39;human nature&#39;. That&#39;s not a work of economics, that&#39;s a work of bourgeois ethics. <_<



Moreover, forms of economic modeling are being applied to other social sciences in order to explain behaviour such as socioeconomics You must not be paying attention, YOU CANNOT MEASURE UTILITY, THAT DEBUNKS THE ENTIRE MARGINALIST PARADIGM.

It doesn&#39;t matter how many fields you can apply it to, you can&#39;t measure it, it&#39;s falsified.

[Hit The North]

Red:


You must not be paying attention, YOU CANNOT MEASURE UTILITY, THAT DEBUNKS THE ENTIRE MARGINALIST PARADIGM.


I&#39;m not arguing that this stuff has any real analytical value, but that it&#39;s out there - imposing itself. You can&#39;t just ignore it and you can&#39;t merely dismiss it. It needs understanding in order to destroy it through critique.


That&#39;s not a work of economics, that&#39;s a work of bourgeois ethics.

Yes it is. But for Smith&#39;s generation it&#39;s a legitimate exercise within the realm of political economy. It&#39;s only later that bourgeois economists attempt to separate their &#39;discipline&#39; off from it&#39;s more ethical and philosophical roots - whilst nevertheless unwittingly importing the ethical and psychological assumptions into their so-called "scientific" models.

[Dewolfemann]

As one who has studied bourgeois economics for a long time, I would argue its worth it.

As ComradeRed has pointed out, the whole premise of neoclassical economics and it&#39;s theory of value is without base. However, there is some value in being able to follow along with the logic of neo-classical economics in order to disprove ideas and recommendations based upon it.

[Tekun]

I agree with ComradeRed
Im in my last year of undergrad Economics, and for the most part it is a waste of time
U only learn what they want u to learn
Never what is truly representative of society
And the way they treat labor,....exploitation at its finest&#33;

That&#39;s one of the reasons why Im planning to study history and/or heteredox economics as grad student

[Dewolfemann]

Good point, it matters where you take it too. It wouldn&#39;t be so bad to take undergraduate economics at Amherst or Utah lets say

[ComradeRed]

Well, I&#39;m thinking about this a little, and I assumed you meant studying bourgeois economics at a university or in school. This I would advise against.

However, if you are studying it on your own...well, you need first knowledge of calculus.

At least differential calculus; this I would be willing to help with (I actually think I can explain it rather well if you would like).

But it does depend on why you want to learn it...and how.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:15 pm
Well, I&#39;m thinking about this a little, and I assumed you meant studying bourgeois economics at a university or in school. This I would advise against.

However, if you are studying it on your own...well, you need first knowledge of calculus.

At least differential calculus; this I would be willing to help with (I actually think I can explain it rather well if you would like).

But it does depend on why you want to learn it...and how.
The course is at a college, and it&#39;s a microeconomics class to be specific.

The reason I want to learn it is because supply and demand and other economic factors would be helpful to know. The transition between capitalism and socialism is key, and I think studying the nature of the bourgeois market would increase my understanding.

At any rate, I might as well take an economics course, since it might be a requirement for a major down the road (ie government). Capitalist rhetoric is basically unavoidable (our readings have already started to lecture us on "why communism failed" and why the free market is superior :rolleyes: ), so I probably have to bite the bullet eventually.

[Dewolfemann]

Ah, well studying first year micro economics wont actually teach you anything about the nature of "markets" under capitalism.

It&#39;s just a stylized, over simplified, unlikely (ie:assume perfect competition, perfect information etc etc&#33;) explanation of what may determine changes in prices and quantities.

You could learn more about supply and demand by reading this short one page chapter in Wage Labour and Capital

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...labour/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm)

You will learn a lot more about how capitalist "markets" work by reading Wage Labour and Capital then by taking first year micro (and its easier and a lot more fun too&#33;)