Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reviving a Progressive Economics:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 02:05 PM
Original message
Reviving a Progressive Economics:
A new Organization for a Long and Distinguished Tradition
by John Weeks, http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/
http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/06/reviving-a-progressive-economics-a-new-organization-for-a-long-and-distinguished-tradition/

... In the early 1960s I chose economics to study at the University of Texas (Austin) because I wanted to help make the world a better place. It is safe to say that if today a student is so motivated, there is almost no university in the developed world that would make even a pretension to provide such economics training. On the contrary, especially in the English-speaking countries economics departments are dedicated to a dogmatic free market ideology that permits no dissent.

In the European Middle Ages the dogmas of the Catholic church enforced daunting barriers to scientific inquiry. The pernicious effect of mainstream (neoclassical) economics is far worse and considerably more powerful ideologically. It is a virus of the mind. Once implanted in the mental processes, it systematically destroys the ability to conduct rational thought. As an intellectual method, it does not render the exoteric into the esoteric (explaining what we observe by what we cannot observe but theoretically infer), which is the function of science. Rather, it renders the complexities of what we observe into ahistorical and anti-social trivia, with its triviality obscured by cabalistic mathematics.

The obviously social nature of human existence is rejected by the neoclassicals in favor of the absurdity that each person is an isolated individual (I recommend that the progressively minded not use the word “individual”, but “people” and “person” in its place). Bereft of the hopes, fears, anxieties and feelings of personal responsibility that make us human. These “individuals” are driven by pure personal greed. The goodness of greed is defined as “rational” behavior. This individualized, irresponsible greed allegedly results in the general welfare. It is difficult to image a doctrine either more vulgar or more flagrantly in the interest of capital.

...

In the late 1970s and 1980s, as politics in the Anglo Saxon countries shifted decisively to the right, the neoclassical fundamentalists made their move: if the profession accepted the validity of self-adjusting, general equilibrium full employment, wasn’t it time that the true believers took control of the profession? In ideological terms, the subsequent purge of all non-neoclassical tendencies, no matter how mild, closely tracked the Spanish Inquisition.

Like the central purpose of the Inquisition, the consolidation of the Spanish nation state (through purging of Islamic and Jewish influence in Iberia), the neoclassical purpose was to create a reactionary, pseudo-intellectual bastion in defense of capitalism, in its most vulgar and anti-social form. The transformation of the economics profession from a field of intellectual inquiry into a closed, dogmatic servant of the status quo is unprecedented in academia. This transformation would be equivalent to Creationism taking over the field of genetics...

/... http://www.social-europe.eu/2011/06/reviving-a-progressive-economics-a-new-organization-for-a-long-and-distinguished-tradition/

John Weeks is an economist and Professor Emeritus at SOAS, University of London.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. sort of tangential,
but I'm a historian and want to battle 140-year-old pseudo-history about "Catholic dogmas":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
kNr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If you were an historian (not 'a' historian) you would never cite Wikipedia
as a primary source.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC