This is a serous question. When are you going to get serious, study economics and develop some hard theory. Right now...

Get everybody to read it then.

This, the neoliberal revolution was started by rich guys bankrolling think tanks producing """""studies""""" that supported their views, 20 years later economics departments went from bastions of leftist (or at least socdem) thought to what they are today, and the leaders of economic policy went from people who managed production to egg heads who spent their careers finding ways to support those crap theories. Why can't we do the same?

A bunch of self-taught leftists are not going to come up with new economic theories, and people who actually study economics tend rightwards, their interests are too narrow to care about coming up with "new socialist theories" and even if they want to go down that path, I don't think that's what most researchers are focused on and I don't know how well-received by the community he or she will be.

So if we actually want more serious heterodox, left-wing economists to pop up, we need to make this a viable path first. When all the career opportunities, the money and prestige point towards one direction, and when all the demands of government, private enteprise and think-thanks fit a certain paradigm, people will be formed to attend this paradigm and follow this direction. We can't beat them at that. No matter how many competent socialist economists show up today, their works will be left to a small audience on the pages of Monthly Review. So this is just one in a list of problems we should fix through politics and through the state, not by deciding to tell an internet board to study economics.

Capitalism has piles and piles of theory, Paul Krugman writes a shitty book like every month and there are hundreds like him.

I don't think self-taught economists are going to be able to come up with anything of value tbh. I'm hoping to get into grad school for econ, but even then, I'm hoping to just get a kushy job afterwards.

Also Zizek is ridicoulous. What practical purposes has his theories had?

I've actually considered changing my major from neuro-psych to econ, but I feel like I would be much more useful as a psychologist.
I have too much fun debunking race IQ memes.

Go for economics

are colleges, (businesses who like profit, often run by self identified 'businessmen') going to start giving grants to marxists? I'll just go to the FAU Home Depot college of Business and ask to do some research on the falling rate of profit

The mods have begun not taking the demand to limit anfem shitposters seriously.
Does that make the demands irrelevant?

Same, the EU didn't want Varoufakis to offer any other sollution than austerity. Does that make Varoufakis' position irrelevant?

We have theory. Theory is being formed. But what does is matter when noone listens?

DC sees everyone saying "this shit you do with the movies is no good, add more story" but as long as they make their money back, they don't care.

And once DC, EU or the BO will care it will already be too late.

societal critique isn't practical?

What do you mean by socialist economics? Marxian analysis of capitalism? What will its relevance give us?

Read Apo tbh. Also, Zizek a shit.

Neoclassical economics is a dead man walking. Neoliberalism has created a fever-dream of a world economy propped up by unsustainable resource exploitation and massive debt-fueled overconsumption. The boom and bust cycle is getting larger and larger and the next imminent crash will annihilate so much of the current economy it's not even funny.

The hope is that this crash will be severe enough to discredit and sideline business-as-usual economics, but not severe enough to cause global breakdown of society. As long as states remain stable and can maintain supplies of food, water, and utilities to their citizens, then there is room for leftist economics to take root and propose an alternative to the now-shamed neoclassical school.

Leave that to the people dedicated to that. I am a programmer who also happens to be a communist, not a communist theory writer.

When?

Marx was self-taught on political economy and he pissed of the paid apologists of capital so much they're still salty.

Neither Wolff nor Varoufakis is considered relevant by actual economists today. Anyone who does work in heterodox economics is basically considered a joke.

Neither was or is Marx.

We don't have to be considered relevant by the enemy though.

In Europe education is mostly free and the economics department are still almost all exclusively neoliberal or neoclassical. The professors that are considered "alternative" or "provoking" are AnCaps.

I think it has less to do with think tanks implementing their views (although this might be play a role) but more with the rationalized demand of the job market that want practical technocrats and not creative theorists. Economic theory and philosophy is mostly dead and followed the same downfall like philosophy, social science, etc.

The system is designed to embed people in a system where acting outside the existing mechanics is considered "irresponsible" - just look at the massive propaganda campaign against Varoufakis. This is perpetuated by neoliberal Globalism where free trade agreements and financial debt lock you within the chokehold of global capital, the only way to avoid this is being an economic and military juggernaut like the US or China. Revolution in frontier states like Greece or Venezuela are doomed to fail though.

The third reason, and OP might have a point there, is that students in economics tend to be smug libertarians wearing Polo shirts. People leaning towards the left tend to follow the same group dynamic as everybody else and flock arround similar minds in other subjects because they can't get along with the business chads.

How is their relevance relevant?

explain, I'm getting a seizure everytime i read those memes

post 3 of those books

Logical iq is the only iq that matters. Is it genetic or developmental?

Economics is not a natural science, it is purely ideological — it is based on axiomatic assumptions which are not provable. Neoclassical economics has the same scientific status as 'scientific communism' or 'political economy' had in the USSR — you either accept it as a whole or you getting ostracized/gulaged. Now you won't be gulaged obviously, but you will have limited employment opportunities. It is not a subject to a scientific debate in any sense.

Economics of post capitalist systems would most definitely be based on cybernetics.

The economic planning and analysis of the eastern bloc countries was done along those lines.

Books by W. Ross Ashby or Norbert Wiener are universally thought as good introductory books on cybernetics.

Oskar Lange is also well known economist, with literature ranging from philosophy and cybernetics to economy and cybernetics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxian_economics

Marx's analysis is still valid today in the key points. But just as the systems change, the ideas and information need to change as well. And they do change.

Would you seriously expect dogmatic thinking of those who are acquainted with dialectical materialism?