https://medium.com/@jimfarmelant/why-do-marxist-economists-avoid-using-math-and-what-kind-of-conclusions-do-they-reach-without-it-63ff53c5d090
To my mind this question seems to be badly formulated. One problem with the question as presented here is that it presupposes that Marxist economists avoid using math , which isn’t actually true. Many Marxist and post-Marxist economists (e.g., Morishima, Sraffa, Steedman, Shaikh, Foley) have used sophisticated mathematical models. The question, as written, can thus come off as *misinformed or polemical*. There is a certain ambiguity in the question as presented here. It is not at all clear whether “without math” refers to purely philosophical analysis, historical materialism, or dialectical reasoning. That vagueness makes it difficult to answer precisely. Given those issues, a more useful question to answer might be, “How do Marxist economists view the role of mathematical modeling in economic analysis, and what are some of their distinctive theoretical conclusions compared to mainstream economics?” Having said that, it is clear that many, if not most, mainstream economists see their Marxist colleagues as being resistant to using mathematics in their work. This is taken as sufficent in itself for mainstream economists to reject Marxist ideas as being unscientific. Some mainstream economists, just to prove that they are not operating out of political bias, will point out that they likewise reject the work of contemporary Austrian School economists, since they are not only resistant to using mathematics in economics but they also often have philosophical objections to using mathematics. To my knowledge, most Marxist economists, regardless of whether they use mathematics in their work or not, do not have principled philosophical objections to using mathematics. After all, Marx himself believed that mathematics would become increasingly important in economics. To that end, he went out of his way to teach himself calculus. He also made some attempts to using mathematics while writing Capital. At the same time, it is true that many Marxists have been resistant to the use of mathematics in their work. Over sixty years ago, the Norwegian Marxist economist Leif Johansen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Johansen ) addressed some of the issues involved in an article published in Monthly Review, Marxism and Mathematical Economics ( https://www.dropbox.com/home/BOOKS_TRANSFER?preview=htmlb%2C%2BMR-014-09-1963-01_3_Marxism_and_mathematical_economics.pdf ). Alas, much of what he had to say still remains true today. And just to set matters straight, Johansen himself was very much a mathematical economist and was known during his day for his work on econometrics and on mathematical modeling. We might add that there have been Marxist economists, like *Morishima* , *Sraffa* , *Steedman* , or *Foley* , that have used linear algebra, dynamic systems, and input-output analysis to formalize Marx’s theory of value and reproduction. While others, like *Mandel* , *Shaikh* , or *Fine* , combine empirical and historical work with less formal modeling. Many Marxist economists view mathematics as a tool, not as the foundation of theory. For them, economic laws are to be treated as historically specific social relations , not eternal or natural ones. So math is valuable when it expresses real social processes (e.g., the circuit of capital), but misleading when it abstracts away from history and class structure. For most Marxist economists: (1). Value and profit derive from labor, not from market equilibrium. (2). Crises arise from contradictions within accumulation, not from external shocks. (3). Economic “laws” are historically bounded — valid only under capitalism. The economy cannot be understood apart from class and power relations. Therefore, it is inaccurate to portray Marxists as“anti-math,” but rather as *methodologically pluralist* — using math when it helps, but subordinating it to social theory. And depending on the theoretical leanings and interests of any given Marxist economist, you will find some whose work is highly mathematical and some whose work involves little use of mathematics. I would also like to point out that mainstream economists are not entirely consistent in their making the claim that the work of economists who abjure the use of mathematics in their work can be safely rejected as being unscientific. After all, the economics profession seemed happy enough when Ronald Coase was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics back in 1991. His papers were generally lacking in mathematics. Here are his two most famous papers: The Nature of the Firm ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x ) , and The Problem of Social Cost ( https://www.law.uchicago.edu/lawecon/coaseinmemoriam/problemofsocialcost ). I would challenge any reader to find a single equation in either paper. Furthermore, while Coase apparently had no principled philosophical objections to the use of mathematics in economics, he was notorious for his disdain for what he called “blackboard economics” which he alleged was practiced by most mainstream economists. He devoted much of his Nobel Lecture ( https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1991/coase/lecture/ ) to articulating his objections to “blackboard economics.” -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39202): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39202 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116214508/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
