[WS:] Good point. Economics in the 'age of reason" is what theology was in the "dark ages" - a logically coherent and carefully shielded from empirical refutation system of thought providing legitimation for the dominant class interests and power structures.
As the sociologist Emile Durkheim aptly observed, the structure of religious (or ideological) systems is a reflection of the social structure of societies that created them. Hence the alimighty deity as the ultimate source of all being in medieval theology, providing legitmation of a feudal hierarchy with the sovereign on the top. Likewise, the self-regulating markets as the ultimate source of social organization and rationality is a reflection of a social class structure in which wheeling-and-dealing merchants and businessmen are the hegemons.
This seems to me like water under the bridge. What I find far more interesting is how such theological/ideological systems find their priests - i.e. intellectual warriors maintaining and defending these systems of thought for little or no personal gain. Guys like Milton Friedman spent their entire lives on modestly paid university sinecures instead of being captains of industry or finances, where they could get fabulously rich. But they were far more ardent supporters of the market rationality that the captains of industry and finances that benefited from it the most. Likewise, medieval monks that pieced together theological discourse lived rather spartan lives without sharing much of the spoils of the feudal power system that their theology legitmated.
So my question is, what circumstances or personality traits make these intellectual "gardener's dogs" fervently protecting what they will not eat themselves? That is, how does one become a dogmatic theologian or an economist manufacturing legitimacy for the rich and powerful without sharing the spoils their wealth and power?
Any thoughts?
Wojtek
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:21 PM, michael perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> wrote:
> Adam Smith is a brilliant writer, who began as a professor of rhetoric.
> The first part of his book is an exercise in ideological purity. In the
> later parts, he contradicts much of this extreme ideology.
>
>
>
> In the Invisible Handcuffs, I show how Smith's famous pin factory story was
> a mix of plagiarism and deception.
>
> In contrast to his Theory Of Moral Sentiments, the Wealth Of Nations was
> not particularly popular until the French Revolution, when the defenders of
> the status quo recognized the ideological value of the work, or presumably
> assuming that no one would read much past the first few chapters.
>
> After the Revolutions of 1848, the age of Classical Political Economy
> ended. Economists became much more careful in allowing realism to seep into
> their works. Consequently, they became far more sterile.
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901
> www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>