underrepresentation of Marxists in the economics departments because it
is
a discredited dogma.
But surely neo-classical economics is also widely discredited and dogmatic yet it is dominant in economics departments. You should have explained why this would be so from a Marxist perspective instead of the purely emotive bullshit response. I am sure many economists do regard Marxism as a discredited dogma and see this as a reason not to bother teaching it even though they may have read little or nothing about Marxist economics.
Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cliopatria is a multi-author history blog tilted to the center-right.
Yesterday, in response to the latest complaint by Robert KC Johnson, a
Brooklyn College professor who posts frequently about the lack of rightwing
representation in the academy, I posted a link to the Columbia Spectator
article about the neoclassical bias in the comments section under Johnson's
post. That prompted a rightwinger to state that there is an
underrepresentation of Marxists in the economics departments because it is
a discredited dogma.
Now, obviously this is bullshit but I wonder when neoclassicism became so
entrenched.
