I am someone who never learned the "mathematical tools" that are supposedly essential for "proving" theories in Economics --- or for doing empirical econometric work (which requires a knowledge of linear algebra as well as probability theory)--- Yet I also am aware of the many uses of advanced math used by modern Marxists (Duncal Foley was a classmate at Swarthmore --- and he routinely used the most advanced mathematics in his modelling!) --- So I very much welcomed this intervention.
The problem is how neoclassical economists USE mathematics --- they use it to show a "new equilibrium" situation --- The traditional MC = MR analysis of firm equilibrium can be dressed up by using two CUBIC equations to "prove" the same thing -- BUT what do we learn by arguing that there are equilibria whenever prices or quantities change --- mostly nothing or worse mis-information. Tendencies are always interrupted by changing circumstances which raises real questions as to whether finding an "equiplibrium" is the least bit helpful. This was the problem confronted by the so-called "classical" economists when they had to deal with the Keynes of the General Theory. Rather than recognizing the absence of an equilibrium in the macro-world they concluded that the only way the Keynes analysis (persistent unemployment above "full" employment) was for there to be STICKY MONEY WAGES .... Way above my head are more DYNAMIC analyses that use mathematics --- to show the inability to "settle" at an "equilibrium" --- ONE FINAL THING --- Once sophisticated economists have used advanced mathematics to reach a conclusion, they BETTER be able to translate that result into plain English or they will be talking to a very small number of people and have virtually no impact on the real world. If JErome Powell gave his press conferences in linear algebra based econometrics --- no one would listen or learn anything! AGAIN -- thanks for this intervention --- it helped clarify a lot. On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 5:08 PM Jim Farmelant via groups.io <jimfarmelant= [email protected]> wrote: > Karl Marx/Piero Sraffa > > To my mind this question seems to be badly formulated. One problem with > the question as presented here is that it presupposes that *Marxist > economists avoid using math*, which isn’t actually true. Many Marxist and > post-Marxist economists (e.g., Morishima, Sraffa, Steedman, Shaikh, Foley) > have used sophisticated mathematical models. The question, as written, can > thus come off as *misinformed or polemical*. > > There is a certain ambiguity in the question as presented here. It is not > at all clear whether “without math” refers to purely philosophical > analysis, historical materialism, or dialectical reasoning. That vagueness > makes it difficult to answer precisely. Given those issues, a more useful > question to answer might be, “How do Marxist economists view the role of > mathematical modeling in economic analysis, and what are some of their > distinctive theoretical conclusions compared to mainstream economics?” > > Having said that, it is clear that many, if not most, mainstream > economists see their Marxist colleagues as being resistant to using > mathematics in their work. This is taken as sufficent in itself for > mainstream economists to reject Marxist ideas as being unscientific. Some > mainstream economists, just to prove that they are not operating out of > political bias, will point out that they likewise reject the work of > contemporary Austrian School economists, since they are not only resistant > to using mathematics in economics but they also often have philosophical > objections to using mathematics. To my knowledge, most Marxist economists, > regardless of whether they use mathematics in their work or not, do not > have principled philosophical objections to using mathematics. After all, > Marx himself believed that mathematics would become increasingly important > in economics. To that end, he went out of his way to teach himself > calculus. He also made some attempts to using mathematics while writing > *Capital*. At the same time, it is true that many Marxists have been > resistant to the use of mathematics in their work. Over sixty years ago, > the Norwegian Marxist economist Leif Johansen > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Johansen> addressed some of the > issues involved in an article published in *Monthly Review, **Marxism and > Mathematical Economics* > <https://www.dropbox.com/home/BOOKS_TRANSFER?preview=htmlb%2C%2BMR-014-09-1963-01_3_Marxism_and_mathematical_economics.pdf> > *. *Alas, much of what he had to say still remains true today. And just > to set matters straight, Johansen himself was very much a mathematical > economist and was known during his day for his work on econometrics and on > mathematical modeling. > > We might add that there have been Marxist economists, like *Morishima*, > *Sraffa*, *Steedman*, or *Foley*, that have used linear algebra, dynamic > systems, and input-output analysis to formalize Marx’s theory of value and > reproduction. While others, like *Mandel*, *Shaikh*, or *Fine*, combine > empirical and historical work with less formal modeling. Many Marxist > economists view mathematics as a tool, not as the foundation of theory. For > them, economic laws are to be treated as *historically specific social > relations*, not eternal or natural ones. So math is valuable when it > expresses real social processes (e.g., the circuit of capital), but > misleading when it abstracts away from history and class structure. > For most Marxist economists: > > (1). Value and profit derive from labor, not from market equilibrium. > > (2). Crises arise from contradictions within accumulation, not from > external shocks. > > (3). Economic “laws” are historically bounded — valid only under > capitalism. > > The economy cannot be understood apart from class and power relations. > Therefore, it is inaccurate to portray Marxists as“anti-math,” but rather as > *methodologically pluralist* — using math when it helps, but > subordinating it to social theory. And depending on the theoretical > leanings and interests of any given Marxist economist, you will find some > whose work is highly mathematical and some whose work involves little use > of mathematics. > > I would also like to point out that mainstream economists are not entirely > consistent in their making the claim that the work of economists who abjure > the use of mathematics in their work can be safely rejected as being > unscientific. After all, the economics profession seemed happy enough when > Ronald Coase was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics back in > 1991. His papers were generally lacking in mathematics. > > Here are his two most famous papers: *The Nature of the Firm* > <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x> > *, *and *The Problem of Social Cost* > <https://www.law.uchicago.edu/lawecon/coaseinmemoriam/problemofsocialcost> > *.* I would challenge any reader to find a single equation in either > paper. Furthermore, while Coase apparently had no principled philosophical > objections to the use of mathematics in economics, he was notorious for his > disdain for what he called “blackboard economics” which he alleged was > practiced by most mainstream economists. He devoted much of his Nobel > Lecture > <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1991/coase/lecture/>to > articulating his objections to “blackboard economics.” > _._ > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39861): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39861 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116944738/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
