quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected"

You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so.

There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science.

Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé.

Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw

Not taken any social science classes and not understanding this? That's a lofty charge to level against an Ivy League graduate student majoring in the social sciences...

Cultural Marxism has been taught in the social science departments in the universities for a long time now, though much of the modern day theories taught in class have their roots in the Frankfurt School, and do not stem from Marx himself. As a general rule, they're aren't many Marxist economists (none at respected institutions), but there are plenty of Marxist historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, and the like (who all don't understand economics). My point here is not that Marx didn't make any contribution to the social sciences - clearly he did, but rather that he didn't make any contributions to economics. Cultural Marxism is different than Marxist economics. (I agree with you regarding your statement that economics is a social science, but that really isn't the mainstream view, and anything branching out on this would require a separate thread).

Marx's position on economics was essentially this: all economic theory is meant to serve the interests from the class which it's proponent stemmed (Marx lived a wealthy bourgeoisie lifestyle, what does that make him?). He wouldn't even refute the economists' critiques of his theories. He shut them out all together and labeled their theories as "tainted ideologies" without ever refuting them. (This includes the criticism of the neoclassical economists, who Krugman basis much of his analysis off of.)

This is analogous to a plane crashing and a scientist wanting to figure out why. Perhaps, he or she might address the problem by exploring the molecular structure of the plane, the environment that it faltered in, etc. The scientist would then use simple rules of physics to help aid in this process. A "Marxist scientist" then would say "That's bourgeoisie physics and those physics are tainted ideologically." No rationally thinking adult would accept this criticism, and that's exactly what his criticism of economics was.

Marx made no contributions to economics. What economic contributions do you think he made? The labor theory of value was thoroughly refuted during the marginal revolution. It's no wonder why Marx couldn't complete Das Kapital; volumes 2 and 3 were posthumously published by Engels after his death. Marx labored his entire life to (unsuccessfully) solve the value predicament he found himself in. His didn't make a contribution to the field of economics, even Krugman recognizes this.

Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" (though this concept is often credited to Emile Durkheim), his theories of historical and dialectical materialism, and his unique way of historical interpretation - not economics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Actually, you have never stated what you mean by "respected"

You do realize that "Marxist" anything was banned from many universities for a long time. They were not even allowed to teach Marxism in any form. Many professors were fired for doing so.

There are many parts of Marxism that are very relevant to many academic disciplines, and are still taught today. To ignore the impact of Marxism on any of the social sciences is to have a wide lack of knowledge about social science.

Marxist ideas are threatening to capitalists, but to say everything that Marx contributed to the field of economics has been dismissed is just not true. It would be like saying all Freudian psychologists are not well respected just because some of what Freud taught is passé.

Marx is used in my field, and while he isn't quoted much anymore.... he isn't ignored, ever. People argue him STILL. Now, to not understand this tells me that you have not taken many courses in the social sciences... and economics is a social science, btw

Not taken any social science classes and not understanding this? That's a lofty charge to level against an Ivy League graduate student majoring in the social sciences...

Cultural Marxism has been taught in the social science departments in the universities for a long time now, though much of the modern day theories taught in class have their roots in the Frankfurt School, and do not stem from Marx himself. As a general rule, they're aren't many Marxist economists (none at respected institutions), but there are plenty of Marxist historians, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, art historians, and the like (who all don't understand economics). My point here is not that Marx didn't make any contribution to the social sciences - clearly he did, but rather that he didn't make any contributions to economics. Cultural Marxism is different than Marxist economics. (I agree with you regarding your statement that economics is a social science, but that really isn't the mainstream view, and anything branching out on this would require a separate thread).

Marx's position on economics was essentially this: all economic theory is meant to serve the interests from the class which it's proponent stemmed (Marx lived a wealthy bourgeoisie lifestyle, what does that make him?). He wouldn't even refute the economists' critiques of his theories. He shut them out all together and labeled their theories as "tainted ideologies" without ever refuting them. (This includes the criticism of the neoclassical economists, who Krugman basis much of his analysis off of.)

This is analogous to a plane crashing and a scientist wanting to figure out why. Perhaps, he or she might address the problem by exploring the molecular structure of the plane, the environment that it faltered in, etc. The scientist would then use simple rules of physics to help aid in this process. A "Marxist scientist" then would say "That's bourgeoisie physics and those physics are tainted ideologically." No rationally thinking adult would accept this criticism, and that's exactly what his criticism of economics was.

Marx made no contributions to economics. What economic contributions do you think he made? The labor theory of value was thoroughly refuted during the marginal revolution. It's no wonder why Marx couldn't complete Das Kapital; volumes 2 and 3 were posthumously published by Engels after his death. Marx labored his entire life to (unsuccessfully) solve the value predicament he found himself in. His didn't make a contribution to the field of economics, even Krugman recognizes this.

Marx's contribution to the social sciences was his analysis of the superstructure - the so called "sociology of knowledge" (though this concept is often credited to Emile Durkheim), his theories of historical and dialectical materialism, and his unique way of historical interpretation - not economics.

Ahhh elitism at its finest. Surely, if one goes to harvard, ones academic knowledge and abilities far outweigh the rest of society....lol.....what a load of shit

Where did I suggest this? I merely mentioned that Harvard, MIT, and Princeton (who I disagree with by the way) control and shape the modern economics profession. Do you disagree with this?