why do people only focus on Marx and Smith as if they are still relevant?

[Anonymous No.23132790]

Wealth of nations easily could have been 90 pages long but is full of redundancies. Marx's Capital is a poorly written, incoherent piece of propaganda tailored to the debate of the corn laws and British parliamentary politics. Why do so many intellectuals believe these are the only two economists and ideas in existence?

[Anonymous No.23132812]

>>23132790
>why
jews

[Anonymous No.23132828]

>>23132790
Because a lot of third way economists are considered dogwhistles for forbidden ideas. Economists are mostly just interested in things that further democracy not impede it as that wouldn't appeal to either freedom of choice or exclusion of others

[Anonymous No.23132841]

>>23132790
>why do people only focus on Marx
They don't though. Marxists don't have relevance in academia anymore (sociology being the exception).

[Anonymous No.23132946]

>>23132841
Marx's influence on sociology was a double edged sword

[Anonymous No.23132958]

>>23132841
>Marxists don't have relevance in academia anymore
fuck you, you lying nigger

[Anonymous No.23132975]

>>23132958
From a real Marxist perspective I can see thinking that. Real Marxism is rare as it's class reductionist. The most you'd get is some basednigger democratic socialist "progressive" saying he likes Marx because Marx is vaguely left, but not actually being Marxist. Hardcore Marxists tend to be their own clique and to see themselves that way.

Although I agree with you that in substance this defense breaks down once you realize they're all milquetoast progressives and vague leftists, even the hardcore Marxists.

[Anonymous No.23132979]

>>23132975
you know who I meant

[Anonymous No.23132980]

>>23132975
In order to understand any system you have to reduce them to constituent parts.

[Anonymous No.23133151]

>>23132790
>Marx's Capital is a poorly written, incoherent piece of propaganda tailored to the debate of the corn laws and British parliamentary politics.
Did we read the same book? I thought it was well written and clear. I also did not see the propaganda that you are talking about. Are you sure that you didnt read the communist manifesto instead?

[Anonymous No.23133288]

>>23132975
This. Real Marxism as a science, politics, ethics, and historicism doesn’t exist in the university anymore. All that’s left are basedbrain professors who are vaguely anti-capitalist when the spotlights on them who wouldn’t even be familiar with the terms alienation, class struggle, commodity fetishism, or dialectical materialism. Part of the 60s “let’s just like not work and like hang out and have fun and like live life maaan” was that it left an entire generation of leftists without the means to analyze things in a sober, systematic way which dealt the burgeoning Marxism in academia in the 40s and 50s a terrible blow from which it has yet to recover. Leftist politics for these people is a vague dissatisfaction with cruelty and injustice without even a shred of a philosophical or economic basis from which to critique it. LSD killed an entire generation of active members in politics.

[Anonymous No.23133336]

>>23132790
Capital is actually quite good, I'm sure you've never actually read it. That said, you're likely also not familiar with contemporary Marxism at all, as 90% of it is about disproving Marx or trying to extend Marx into contemporary modes of production that Marx obviously did not account for. The other 10% is more academic interest such as finding out where and how capitalism actually emerged or whether "feudalism" actually exists or not.

[Anonymous No.23133347]

>>23132790
In all fairness the 20th century proved to be a significant bloodletting for various schools of economic thought. Of the possible 2 dozen (more or less) that started there are only really 5 or 6 left. Of this 5 or 6 only the Austrians propose something that is radically different than the norm and their population is such they are unable to effect the changes they wish to see outside of a revolution. The remaining 4 or 5 are essentially updates to Keynes and Marx and the ones that perished along the way contributed some footnotes to these. There were efforts to bring psychology and biology into play again and the resultant schools of thought were unable to make a break from the core offerings and at best were cannibalized and perhaps a few relevant thought outcomes were absorbed.

[Anonymous No.23133356]

>>23133347
>austrians
>still viable
Equally schizo if not more schizo than Marxists, and they don't even have any somewhat influential, mostly reasonable characters like Lange, Kalecki, Sraffa or Robinson.

[Anonymous No.23133359]

>>23132790
>Why do so many intellectuals believe these are the only two economists and ideas in existence?
Come up with a new one.
>inb4 you come up with Mein Kampf
Not economics.

[Anonymous No.23133365]

>>23133356
The post should not be construed as such that I am presenting an opinion on which one should be adhered to. The Austrians still exist and there are contributors so I qualified them as still being an existing school of economic thought, even they are cognizant of their position in the economic power matrix. I made mention of them in the way I did more to illustrate that there really isn't much in the way of choice between the remaining 5 or 6 schools of thought. The remaining 4 or 5 are left with mostly arguing about quantities more than anything else, so to answer the OP question I could pose a similar question and say what sort of offerings do you believe are out there aside the remaining options?

[Anonymous No.23133456]

>>23133356
No one ever talks about Henry George

[Anonymous No.23133523]

>>23132790
Read Derrida's "Specters of Marx" for an eloquent elaboration. It's about the Marxist injunction to stand on the side of resistance contra power. Even if you (must) abandon the modernist (Hegelian) aspects of Marxist thought like economic determinism, class reductionims, the now anachronistic definition of the proletariat and all notions of totality, your starting point and thus fundamental categories will still be found in Marx.

[Anonymous No.23133526]

>>23133288
The emerging movements in the late 60s were all inspired by Mao's cultural revolution. Your impression stems from the fact that they were mostly led by students who were of course also decidedly antiauthoritarian.

[Anonymous No.23133540]

>>23133523
None of these people could run a grocery store, that would take a larger and clearly written economic treatise.

[Anonymous No.23133604]

>>23133540
Why would they run a grocery store? They are not economists either.

[Anonymous No.23133608]

>>23132828
>third way economists
Not a real thing

[Anonymous No.23133646]

>>23132790
>Marx's Capital is a poorly written, incoherent piece of propaganda tailored to the debate of the corn laws and British parliamentary politics.
You have not read Marx, have you anon?

[Anonymous No.23133662]

>>23133456
Actually he does come up a fair amount in work regarding modern tax havens, wealth inequalities etc., look to guys like Zucman, Milanovic, Durand. Though of course, nobody identifies as a "Georgist" in this day and age, because it is after all a rather simplistic framework.
>>23133365
I'd argue Austrian economics is not a remaining school of thought at all, even the ones that purport to follow it (e.g. Milei) are just spicy monetarists.

[Anonymous No.23133670]

>>23133523
>economic determinism, class reductionims,
I think ideas like these are a relic of mid-20th century Marxology, with more of the later works of Marx now coming into translation or print, contemporary Marxists reframe his legacy as far more probabilistic and with a much more nuanced understanding of class, accomodating things like intellectual and other ephemeral forms of labor far better than in 20th century Marxist orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.23133723]

>>23132790
>Why do so many intellectuals believe these are the only two economists and ideas in existence?
Because otherwise they would have to admit List was right.

[Anonymous No.23133737]

>>23133662
Based on how the monetarist movement played out I would not be opposed to this type of argument. The overlap is certainly substantial enough to make a case, the key difference was mostly in one emphasizing monetary supply and the other focusing almost entirely on the individual. I am not in disagreement with what you have said, but admittedly am not well read enough on the current iterations to determine if there is any further differences between them.

[Anonymous No.23134028]

>>23132790
Because they were both the direct creation of the anglo intelligence networks plans to ferment global chaos and destroy the hidden truths for national industrialization to break free of anglo dominance

[Anonymous No.23134658]

>>23132790
Adam Smith is fascinating well-respected enlightment age professor among the intellectual elite, who think logically and morally neutral, gave us a wonderful revelation about what happening when people couldn't figured out for ages. His practical philosophy gave the west the most prosperous period of their history
and most def Wealth of nations is a recommended reading and Smith is based af.
Marx is a drunkard jew neet faggot who accomplished nothing in his life, he had retards for friends, want to use utopian platonic philosophy to create an economic system kek based on emotional entitlement toward "muh" labour.

[Anonymous No.23134801]

>>23134658
What's money?

[Anonymous No.23135002]

>>23133288
I can tell you're a leftypol tranny.

[Anonymous No.23135012]

>>23133288
>Real Marxism
lol

[Anonymous No.23135027]

>>23132790
beacause the powers want you to idiot. it's crazy how much of the population's worldview still believes things are just 'emergent' and persist in a 'marketplace of ideas'. no you idiots, people pay for these ideas to be alive and well.

[Anonymous No.23136553]

Because academia is completely spellbound by normie morality and normie dichotomies. They never engage with ideas that aren't mainstream. And (((media))) determines the mainstream.
The problem is not, like many think, that they're stupid. It's that they're unchallenged.
t. works in academia

[Anonymous No.23136893]

>>23132828
>Economists are mostly just interested in things that further democracy
hahahaha

[Anonymous No.23136949]

>>23132841
lol

[Anonymous No.23137688]

>>23132790
>Wealth of nations easily could have been 90 pages long but is full of redundancies.
Because Smith was a real scholar unlike today's academic pseuds who can't parse a sentence or build an argument up from the foundations.

>Marx's Capital is a poorly written, incoherent piece of propaganda tailored to the debate of the corn laws and British parliamentary politics.
Whatever you think of Marx, no sane literate person would say Capital is poorly written or incoherent. Its an impressive piece of true scholarship full of classical and Biblical allusions, coherent (if flawed) arguments that are sophisticated and laid out in great detail. Even a fanatic conservative like Roger Scruton respects Marx. Its only in America and shitholes like South Korea where Marx is an evil boogeyman no one can ever be allowed to say anything nice about him.

>Why do so many intellectuals believe these are the only two economists and ideas in existence?
Because humanities people aren't economists. Wealth of Nations and Capital are respected for their erudition and philosophical content not their specific economic theories. Humanities faggots are narrow minded and conservative. They like their literary canon. If you look at economists, they don't read Marx at all and (although there was a revival of him after 2008). There are a lot of business execs, corporate, and finance people who read Marx too and they defintely aren't Marxists.

>>23132958
Leftists are strong in humanities and social sciences but if you study international relations, political science, strategic studies etc. these are not fields dominated by leftists at all. Even in the humanities, old fashioned orthodox Marxism is dead and the people who peddle it are seen as fringe crazies like Vivek Chibber.

[Anonymous No.23138531]

>>23134801
That's a tricky question that will require mucho texto cuz It depends on what perpective you are asking.
But in a nutshell. Money is the unit of measurement that has an initial arbitary value agreed upon socially, prone to fluatuation, used for transaction between people according to the value of things. This money is necessary in a civilized society since with it is the mean of transaction and measurement of value we need to determine the offer and demand of things and measure the added value in them in the concerened society from the micro-economic level to the macro-economic level which open the door to an even way bigger and complex conversation.

[Anonymous No.23138537]

>>23137688
>these are not fields dominated by leftists at all
The colleges themselves are dominated by leftist DEI niggers you colossal fucking faggot. Stop playing jewish word games.

[Anonymous No.23138551]

>>23132790
>Marx's Capital is poorly written
Anything but.

[Anonymous No.23139443]

>>23132790
why do rightoids feel compelled to pretend that 70 or so years of wallpapering over the problem constitutes a new and permanent paradigm shift

[Anonymous No.23139449]

>>23139443
Why do leftists think that a man can be a woman just because he feels like one?

[Anonymous No.23139978]

>>23138537
Yeah cause we all know Georgetown and West Point are hives of the radical left Marxism.

[Anonymous No.23140012]

>>23139443
>OP doesn't mention right or left
>IMMEDIATELY enter thread to throw an incel tantrum

Why are you like this? Seriously, why?

[Anonymous No.23140261]

>>23133526
Its probably why academics like to gatekeep information and see the undereducated as peons worthy of manipulation.

We need a new Khmer Rouge

[Anonymous No.23140265]

>>23133608
>what is distributism, market socialism and chartism?

[Anonymous No.23140282]

>>23136893
Not what I meant. I meant in terms of western political structure, not "authentic" leftist democracy