Replies

Mathematization of economics happened parallel with the increase of positivism in social sciences since Comte. The main idea is that there's a 'law' in social relation that applies everywhere, every time. This way, there's an 'objective view' that independent of one's reality.

The other end of the spectrum, of course, is the post-modern way of seeing things: there's no such thing as 'objective view'. Reality depends on each person's way of seeing things. It's not different in perspective. It's different reality altogether.

The 'middle road', actually offered by Karl Marx, with his 'realism'. He conceded that there's 'objective things' independent of our mind/view. These things, as well as the mechanism of one the relationships between one thing and another, can be observed and studied like molecular chemistry. However, people have different backgrounds, etc., that give them different perspective. Just like us looking at one object, but from different angles as we stand on different places. As a result, Marx argues that social sciences (inc. economics) should try to find social mechanism that exist in particular society if we want to understand and explain any phenomena in that society.

Unfortunately, to some extent Marx (and/or his followers) didn't really follow this practice of social sciences either. After all, they believe that in every society the workers are oppressed by the capitalist class; hence, workers need to unite and revolt.

That is not a correct summation of Marx's thought. He was totally opposed to using conclusions drawn from ancient Rome for 19th century England for example.

Each society has a consciousness which is developed according to the stage of ecnomic development that society is in. Hence there was NO proletariat until capitalism developed. So the oppression during the 18th century was against the bourgeoise by the feudal rulers. Marx was very much against trying to foment proletarian revolution if the economy was not at a higher stage of development. Recall the debate about "skipping stages of development" to prematurely bring about a proletarian revolution. This meant Russia was not ripe according to Marxian thought. Lenin had to rationalize his revolution to overcome Marx.

As a result, Marx argues that social sciences (inc. economics) should try to find social mechanism that exist in particular society if we want to understand and explain any phenomena in that society.

I had to go through the pain of reading marx (no, I am not a marxist), his "economic theory" was more or less a philosophy that played class warfare.

Its not viable as a social science, or even as a utopian economic theory (several economic classes don't even seem to exist in his writings, forget simple, either he didn't know where to put them, or he ignored them).

I don't recall him looking for any mechanism to explain phenomena in society, he simply came up with his own conclusions and stated them (hint, see democratic party platform for his conclusions).

It always amazed me, that Marx, more then his partner Engels (who actually knew some economics and finance) was the more well known one, when its clear, what Marx was about, was not even a social science, it was a philosophy of life modeled as a theory, wrapped in populism with a hate the rich rhetoric, and ignorant of even the society he himself lived in.

Mao was one of the few (but still insane) folks who tried to rework marx to apply to an agriculteral society (marx leaves out farming and agriculteral societies in his writings or how his "theory" would have applied to them.....very very ironic when one thinks about it).