this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
501 points (94.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43856 readers
1702 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For this site? The overwhelming majority of Marxist Leninists are more likely to be "educated" in economics by finding sources that support their preconceived beliefs than being educated in formal settings that would discourage such an anti-scientific approach.
Basically if your understanding of economics ends before or does not include the empirical revolution in economics which takes place in the 1960's then you likely aren't well informed on the subject in any regard.
That's likely unpopular here
Much of Marxist literature is still taught in universities because it's in fact been such a good analysis of our economic system that it's still relevant to this day
That simply is not true. Marx's sociology and anthropological work has some value but the vast majority of Marx's views on economics are no longer seen as useful, accurate or relevant. Bringing up Marx as a source us like bringing up Adam Smith, sure they wrote highly influential works but what was correct has been incorporated into the classical literature and what is incorrect, such as the labor theory of value, is taught as an example of previously held incorrect beliefs.
Very little of what Marx did is relevant to today's economics because the focus is so incredibly different.
Our extreme capitalist society discards Marx? No way!
No, economics as a subject writ large in all nations has moved past Marx. Marx was a human and as such he was wrong about some things. Why would we cling to dated material that we know is not correct because a bunch of fanboys, who aren't academics, think we should?
Do you think physics should hyper ficus on Newton or might you concede we have learned things since then?