4 ms·

No they don't! [1-6] The author of this piece, Mike Koczal, is an ideological blogger. You can catch him on Salon, MSNBC, TNR, etc. The main economist mentione

• nhaehnle 13y ago
  "offbeat" views (e.g. numerous courses that take Marx seriously) Right, how could anybody possibly take one of the most important thinkers in the history of political economy seriously! Marx has important but inconvenient things to say even today. He may not have been right about everything, but a lot is spot on. It's just that lucid writing about class struggles is rather uncomfortable to those who are winning these class struggles. In any case, those who ignore him do so at their own (intellectual) peril.
  • crdoconnor 13y ago
    I find it amusing since Marx is basically a mirror image of Neoclassical economics (the dominant strain in American academia today). They're both awful at making predictions. They're both highly ideological. They're both highly unscientific (making non-disprovable assertions). When applied religiously, both lead to horribly broken economic outcomes. And, ultimately, they both perform similar roles for the dominant power structures of their day. Marxism was taught in the Soviet Union to promote the Soviet State and economic system. Neoclassical is the intellectual justification of our neoliberal system. Both have interesting parts which it is possible to learn from, but they're basically both the ideological opinion forming apparatus of the state. It's not wise to point this out in polite company, however. People get upset.
  • spikels 13y ago
    You are correct that Marx is important in the HISTORY of economics (and it's idealogical cousin, political economy) but he has contributed almost nothing to modern economics. When he wrote a 150 years ago he understood little of what you would learn in a freshman intro to economics class. For example, his most famous belief that all value is derived from labor is so simplistic and clearly wrong as to be absurd (try responding to this post without capital). The UMass Amherst economics department describes itself as a center for "heterodox" economics[1]. Look up the definition of that word and tell me again how they are mainstream. BTW - I found Engles to be much more lucid than Marx's rather archaic prose. He is still almost completely wrong but at least his meaning is clearer. [1] http://www.umass.edu/economics/facjobs.html http://www.umass.edu/economics/facjobs.html