I am surprised that you say "alternative to capitalist market economies" as your concept do not challenge capitalism at all. Many thoughts and categories of the 19th century political economy are more useful than your declining bourgeois thoughts. I do not know even one serious critical political economist of the 19th century who employed "naturalized economic fiction". If you think of positivists of that time, in my view they are not scietific at all.
From: Alejandro Agafonow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <email@example.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 5, 2009 10:40 am
Subject: Re: [OPE] economics is not natural science
Nice thought Paula, but wrong place to share it. Most OPE’s members support a version of this naturalized economic fiction. Just take a look at the analogies take out of 19th century mechanics they use to present their thoughts. They hardly might offer a real alternative to capitalist market economies.
De: Paula <Paula_cerni@msn.com>
Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Enviado: viernes, 4 de septiembre, 2009 20:12:24
Asunto: [OPE] economics is not natural science
by Douglas Rushkoff
"We must stop perpetuating the fiction that existence itself is dictated by the immutable laws of economics. These so-called laws are, in actuality, th
e economic mechanisms of 13th Century monarchs. Some of us analyzing digital culture and its impact on business must reveal economics as the artificial construction it really is. Although it may be subjected to the scientific method and mathematical scrutiny, it is not a natural science; it is game theory, with a set of underlying assumptions that have little to do with anything resembling genetics, neurology, evolution, or natural systems."
ope mailing list
ope mailing list
Received on Sat Sep 5 04:03:22 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 30 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT