I disagree. The principals of Marxism employed aren’t done well enough and most changes I would like to see in society would be more Marxist than neoclassical.
The “heavily progressive income tax” that used to be a staple ont he American economy has been eroded to a shell of what it was for example. That needs to be restored to its former glory. I wish that’s what they meant when they say make America great again… Workers having more equity/stake in companies could solve a lot of our current end stage capitalism bullshit. Marx believed in abolishing inheritance, which I think would help a ton with the rampant nepotism bullshit we suffer from. At least some type of cap and regulating all the ways the wealthy circumvent inheritance taxes. Oddly enough Smith, the “invisible hand” free market god of the right wing also believed in abolishing inheritance.
This is tangential to your point, but every time I see an implication that Smith had anything in common with a modern conservative I feel the need to point out that not only did he not believe in inheritance as you said; he also believed in social welfare programs like public education, and anything else that the market would predictably not be able to handle. In his time healthcare was only starting to get to the point of realizing that cowpox was a useful innoculation for chickenpox, but I have no doubt he would believe in socialized healthcare in a modern context.
Smiths free market was never supposed to be this free:
Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.’
Wealth of Nations, V:I.b, p.709-710
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.’
Wealth of Nations, V:I.b, p.715
‘Corn is a necessary, silver is only a superfluity.’
Wealth of Nations, I:XI.e, p.210
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition … is … the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.’
Theory of Moral Sentiments, I:III, p.61
‘It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxurious and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people that ought ever to be taxed.’
Wealth of Nations, V:II.h, p.888
‘The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the publick expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.’
As with everything from an intellictual, the Republicans took Smith and held it up to a fun house mirror when selecting the parts they liked. Reagan was the real inflection point for them on economic theory. They called Raegons economic platform “voodoo economics” in the primaries. It never made any sense, never had any grounding in reality. Yet now is their accepted platform.
Smith is supposedly their north star and they contradict his theory continually and ignore all the parts they don’t like. In college reading Smith I was shocked at how much I agreed with him. There are so many things in his theories that would make free market capitalism more practical that we don’t employ.
Marx was wrong about a bunch if stuff most importantly is he was 100% incorrect about the labor theory of value. Why should economics incorporate ideas that are without question not correct?
Im not saying discount all their theory though. Neoclassical economics took the stuff that works from guys like Marx and Smith and dropped the stuff that was incorrect.
Suggesting we should bring more of Marx back in would mean adopting more of the stuff we know is invalid or incorrect in Marx’s case.
If’s a method of explaining the way resources are allocated. It isn’t supposed to “work” and anyone suggesting it should has no idea what economics is.
There’s no reason to bring any more of Marx into neoclassical economics than has already been taken. The stuff we left out was the invalid stuff
I disagree. The principals of Marxism employed aren’t done well enough and most changes I would like to see in society would be more Marxist than neoclassical.
The “heavily progressive income tax” that used to be a staple ont he American economy has been eroded to a shell of what it was for example. That needs to be restored to its former glory. I wish that’s what they meant when they say make America great again… Workers having more equity/stake in companies could solve a lot of our current end stage capitalism bullshit. Marx believed in abolishing inheritance, which I think would help a ton with the rampant nepotism bullshit we suffer from. At least some type of cap and regulating all the ways the wealthy circumvent inheritance taxes. Oddly enough Smith, the “invisible hand” free market god of the right wing also believed in abolishing inheritance.
This is tangential to your point, but every time I see an implication that Smith had anything in common with a modern conservative I feel the need to point out that not only did he not believe in inheritance as you said; he also believed in social welfare programs like public education, and anything else that the market would predictably not be able to handle. In his time healthcare was only starting to get to the point of realizing that cowpox was a useful innoculation for chickenpox, but I have no doubt he would believe in socialized healthcare in a modern context.
Smiths free market was never supposed to be this free:
Wealth of Nations, V:I.b, p.709-710
Wealth of Nations, V:I.b, p.715
Wealth of Nations, I:XI.e, p.210
Theory of Moral Sentiments, I:III, p.61
Wealth of Nations, V:II.h, p.888
Wealth of Nations, V:II.e, p.842
As with everything from an intellictual, the Republicans took Smith and held it up to a fun house mirror when selecting the parts they liked. Reagan was the real inflection point for them on economic theory. They called Raegons economic platform “voodoo economics” in the primaries. It never made any sense, never had any grounding in reality. Yet now is their accepted platform.
Smith is supposedly their north star and they contradict his theory continually and ignore all the parts they don’t like. In college reading Smith I was shocked at how much I agreed with him. There are so many things in his theories that would make free market capitalism more practical that we don’t employ.
Marx was wrong about a bunch if stuff most importantly is he was 100% incorrect about the labor theory of value. Why should economics incorporate ideas that are without question not correct?
Every economist had ideas that don’t work in practice. It’s not a reason to discount all of their work and theory.
Im not saying discount all their theory though. Neoclassical economics took the stuff that works from guys like Marx and Smith and dropped the stuff that was incorrect.
Suggesting we should bring more of Marx back in would mean adopting more of the stuff we know is invalid or incorrect in Marx’s case.
I guess that interpretation is valid if you think neoclassical economics is successful and working.
If’s a method of explaining the way resources are allocated. It isn’t supposed to “work” and anyone suggesting it should has no idea what economics is.
Ah, yes I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’ll go burn my econ degree in effigy.