From: bobcat-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: RE: M-INTRO: Mainstream Economics: Why Not Marxian
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:01:10 -0700


I think the main reason that Marxism and Socialism have so little
credibility in our society is that they are horribly misunderstood.  They
are not studied by most students in school.  They are 4-letter words that
are not to be discussed in the business world.  Capitalism is preached to us
as soon as we're old enough to learn anything.

Far too many people equate Marxism with China, North Korea, and/or the
former Soviet Union, none of which had viable or humane economies or
governments.  When mentioning socialism, no one seems to remember that there
are many wonderful countries in Europe that are viable, compassionate
socialist societies.

Here are some of the main economic criticisms against Marxism that I have
heard recently:

1.  Under socialism, there is no motivation for an individual to work hard
or innovate, because he won't be rewarded any more than the lazy hobo that
drinks in the park all day. (This is by far the most common argument, I
think)
2.  I work hard for what I earn, why should I be forced to give up my
rightfully earned wages to other people?
3.  There has never been a viable socialist economy or government.  (See my
point above about the USSR, etc.)
4.  If we didn't have intelligent, educated, and wealthy capitalists to own
and manage the production process, the system would collapse under the
ignorance and stupidity of the masses.
5.  A functional society requires large stores of available capital so that
new businesses, production processes, and ideas.  This requires that there
be a class of people that have the money that they can invest in new
ventures.

Ironically, most of these arguments are based on untrue assumptions, and
show how little many people know about Marxism and socialism.  Most of those
false assumptions can be debated (or discredited entirely) by using the
works of Marx and other economists.

I really wish that Marx got even a fraction of the attention paid to Adam
Smith, whose theories were a brilliant foundation for the economic
discipline, but don't hold up in the real world.  Then maybe people would
see that a socialist society isn't as bad as they think.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of
GFunk-AT-pseud.pseud
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:59 PM
To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: M-INTRO: Mainstream Economics: Why Not Marxian

Why does Marxian Economics seem to have little credibility in today's 
mainstream economics?  I don't understand why there is such an emphasis on 
mathematically rigorous models of neoclassical economics, when inherently 
most model's assumptions seem to be (1) too simple and (2) too impossible.  
For instance, one of many complaints about neoclassical economics is the 
assumption that agents have perfect knowledge, when obviously this is not 
nor ever can be true, in theory at least.  Also, can't people see the 
limitations of capitalism in regards to human welfare, particularly in the 
here and now.  Theory is only good if it shows to work in really life.  I 
really want to know the harsh criticisms of Marxian economics besides the 
arguments explaining away Marx's utopian view of society as a communistic 
one.  I want to know about economic structures and not specifically societal

ones.  Any feedback would be appreciated.




     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
 



     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---