There is something sad about the marxist left. The flaws in marginalist economics, the dominant ideology of capitalist contemporary culture, are so drastic, so easily uncovered, so devastating in their import once exposed, that the obsession of marxists with their own ideological baggage is completely frustrating. Why bother with dialectic, and Marx’s other theories, when the clear path to ideological expose lies in traveling light, without metaphysical baloney from Hegel, repackaged via Marx. Contemporary leftists could just about dismantle the whole theory fraud and demand a new social contract, but instead they are turned into not-even-pedants trying to prove Marx predicted 2008, aor that the labor theory of value really does work, etc….
The intent of LFM then is to simply break out of this trap with another take on history, one that can be reduced to a simple outline, dispense with ‘theories’, introduce free agency, expose economic laws as illusion, expose marginalist economics, make it clear that no science of economics exists, leastwise one that justifies the strategies of economic exploitation in the name of markets.
The question of economic theory is almost hopeless. People with the smarts to deal with these theories succumb to them. Why? Look at figures such as Krugman: he has mastered the genre, but hasn’t the genre mastered him? (I cite his interesting coauthored textbook, btw, in LFM’s long notes, as a useful and better than average ‘intro to economics’ text). I perused dozens of these in researching WHEE sitting on library shelves collecting dust: only the most recent being in the game in the endless efforts to keep indoctrination into Econ 101 an effective tool of ‘domination, hegemony, etc…’. They are mostly very successful before they too begin to collect dust, as the next lot arrives. But the theories proposed are not science. Period. And noone in the game can point out this simple fact. Meanwhile, marxists are so glued to their Marx mumbojumbo that they can’t seem to deal with the twentieth century, what to say of the twenty-first.
We don’t need to submit to economic theories or models, then, and can propose modifications to economic arrangements based on the values we find superior rather than idiotic marginalist theorems and the range of inevitability arguments, including the end of history racket.
Look at the TV discussions of economic unemployment. Jubilation greets a small uptic in the rates, but the fact that ten plus million are permanently unemployed, even if mentioned, never jars anyone into seeing reality: an economic system that can no longer tackle unemployment at its real level is a failure and should be changed or scrapped. It is the theories peddled to fool people that make it seem that these situations are ordained by nature. They are no such thing.
A decent economic has to deal with the army of unemployed. Capitalism can’t do that, and the crooks who run this game know this perfectly well.