I don't think that there is one unified social ontology underlying neoclassical economics which everyone accepts. Neoclassical economics is an eclectic amalgam of theories which intend to justify the rationality and efficiency of markets for the allocation of resources, but every new textbook has yet another story about the existential underpinnings of the theorems. Compare for example the popular textbooks by Samuelson and Mankiw.
In my own theory, I think a core problem with economics is its malformed notion of what prices are. I have commented on this very briefly, in an introductory way, in a wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_prices_and_ideal_prices . However most of my wiki articles are now being destroyed, so I will have to write something up elsewhere, in a more lasting, eloquent and sophisticated way with a bit of math in it. Part of my argument is that the "price mechanism" does not exist, and that a lot of entities used by economics simply do not exist. I think you have to synthesize Marx with Post-Keynesian insights about how economies really work. Neoclassical economics is not completely wrong, but a lot of it is wrong. According to Dani Rodrik, Neoclassical economics says "you need to state your ideas clearly, you need to ensure they are internally consistent, with clear assumptions and causal links, and you need to be rigorous in your use of empirical evidence". But in reality the content of neoclassical economics is for the most part very far removed from that. In New Zealand in the 1980s I used to own a copy of Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez's “The philosophy of praxis”. Merlin published two books of his. He is a very interesting thinker, though I ended up disagreeing with him about some things. In the time I have been alive, more research has been done on human beings, their society and their history than has ever been done before, in the whole history of the world. But few Marxists take note of this. The research shows that many of Marx's ideas have to be adjusted or relativised in the light of the facts about human & socio-cultural evolution. But orthodoxy gets in the way of a reappraisal of the theory. You would think that a journal like "Historical Materialism" would seek to assess critically and disseminate the latest advances in the scientific understanding about the course of human evolution, but instead the journal is devoted to sentimentally cherishing a Marxist philosophy such as it existed in the 1920s or 1930s. J.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
