Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 1

message: i'm under the impression that marxianism is more a philosophy and that marxism is more a political ideology, but i'm not sure. Gringo300 03:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Austrian economics is not representative of Austrian economics. The following statement is false:
::Most economists no longer subscribe to the labor theory of value, which has been superseded by ::the Austrian theory of subjectivism. Subjectivism states that things do not have inherent value; they have value only insofar as people desire them.
I replaced it with:
::Most economists no longer subscribe to the labor theory of value, which has been superseded by the Neoclassical theory of value, which defines value mainly as exchange rate.
71.246.228.43 08:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrian economics is not mainstream

message: Ollieplatt's obvious trolling aside, the econ department at UMass is probably the only one in the country which integrates the Marxian framework into the curriculum. Google demonstrates plenty of folks with degrees from there listing specialties in Marxian economics, and the department's own website quotes from an external evaluation committee stating that the department is a "jewel in the crown" and listing Marxian economics first among the economic traditions present there. Moreover, Rethinking Marxism is based there. See also , . RadicalSubversiv E 10:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UMass economics department

message: Though many Marxist authors have attempted to portray the Austrian school as a "bourgeois reaction" to Marx, such an interpretation is untenable:
Statements like this aren't particularly neutral. - FrancisTyers 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Rather than duplicating the material at Marxism, I'd like to see some information about the etymology of the term "Marxian".  When was it first used?  That's what I came to the page looking for. --71.241.143.133 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. In fact, I am going to look that up right now. I haven't the slightest clue where this term comes from. --jenlight 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The current version of the article claims that
:"His work is seen as the basis for a viable analytic framework and an alternative to more conventional neoclassical economics."
I am certainly not an expert on Marx, but my professors claim that neoclassical economics is "extremely" Marxian, in the following sense: Marx argued that people's behaviour is largely determined by their social class/status.  Modern macroeconomics models individuals as making decisions that are determined by a limited set of attributes (wealth, and possibly age, gender, children).  Of course, economists view this limited set of attributes as a simplifying assumption, but nevertheless maintain that for many decisions, these assumptions yield good approximations to observed behaviour.
Summary: like Marx, macroeconomists argue that much of human behaviour can be explained by social class.  Therefore, Marx provides a foundation rather than an alternative to neoclassical economics.
This article should either provide evidence for its "Marx is an alternative" claim, or not make this claim.
Clausen 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoclassical (macro)economics is Marxian?