Marx said economists under capitalism resemble hired prize fighters, as true a sentiment now as it ever was. The professional title of "economist" does have a greater cachet in the boozhie world than, say, "anthropologist," by far -- probably because the field seems to deal directly with money and evokes exotic mathematical formulations beyond the reach of mere mortals (in the popular imagination) -- but the foundations are as tenuous as any soft science. One of Ron Paul's big claims is he's influenced by economists, dammit -- economists! The Austrians. This is supposed to impart a kind of rigor to his thinking that wishy-washy, vague, etc., liberals lack.
I will say that it is nice to have folks like Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Doug Henwood, etc. -- folks who can claim to be economists even by the stringent admittance standards the capitalist domain demands from non-neoclassical folks -- on the good guys' side, even if for many people on the far left even these guys don't go far enough. I'd add UT's Econ. Prof. Harry Cleaver (_Reading Capital Politically_) to the list.
A similar conundrum is the small domain of Marxist criminology: Some think the idea of Marxist Criminology seems absurd, but what I've read of what few Marxist criminologists I've come across -- who either focus on crimes against humanity, white collar crime, and/or the gargantuan crime that is this whole rotten capitalist system -- is pretty eye-opening.
-B.
Joanna wrote:
"Nicely said. And basically, this is the content of many of the 'professions.' I mean, if you have the power to define the terms, you've pretty much won the game."
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
"economic theory in a capitalist society is legitmation of the capitalist system as a "natural" institituion ruled by 'natural' laws akin to the laws of physics. This physics-envy is not just a wet dream of the economic profession - it is the only product the economists have in store that is of any value to the ruling class. Without that physics-envy, economics would utterly fail its main function - to legitmize capitalism as a 'natural' institution, but instead would portray it is a subjective one, and as such, subject to questioning."