<p>Schools</a> - The Heterodox Economics Portal - HETecon.com</p>
<p>UC Riverside, UMass Amherst, and University of Utah all have courses in Marxism in their economics department. Is it too soon since the Cold War? Should more schools be teaching alternative viewpoints in economics? Does this harm economics students? Discuss.</p>
<p>Hmmm, it’s hard to say. I suppose, yes, courses focusing on alternative economic systems within an economics major are acceptable, even beneficial, as most of the courses are going to teach about our eceonomic system anyway. </p>
<p>And at least this way they are getting professionally educated about it, rather than learning it themselves and possibly misinterpreting certain aspects of the systems.</p>
<p>Why not? Unless people are required to take them</p>
<p>Well…it’s not a matter of whether or not Marxism is effective or not, just that it has changed the world both economically and socially. So of course it should taught.</p>
<p>Hate to break it to you but the end of the cold war did not signal the start of Marxism being taught in mainline US universities. Its was obviously not the mainstream theory here, but universities taught Marxism through out the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, etc. And hell, they their was even enthusiasm about the theory in the US before that…</p>
<p>^
Ditto. Duke long had a Marxist Studies program, although I think many of those professors have retired. It’s been reduced to a minor in Marxism and Society.</p>
<p>Wow … just wow. Assuming for the moment that Marxism is a HORRIBLE thing, how does one expect newly minted economics students to RECOGNIZE when some variant is introduced as a “refinement” to capitalism? Is Marxism like pornography … no one can define it but everyone recognizes it when it appears???</p>
<p>Marxism was one of the most important and powerful ideologies of the past few decades. So of course it should be. I think some people have the misconception that Marxism is wrong and Capitalism is right. They are different ideas, nothing moral or immoral is integrated in either.</p>
<p>Marxism has been taught in philosophy departments since it began, without a lot of turmoil except for a few revolutions causing millions of deaths.</p>
<p>In a lesser degree, the current school of economists in government seems to favor a “hands-on” approach to structuring the economy. So perhaps studying Marxism and socialism isn’t so bad; it’s just a matter of exposure.</p>
<p>Too soon since the Cold War? What, are we in some sort of suppressive oligarchical state right now? Teaching Marxism is completely legitimate and I don’t see why any universities would hesitate to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahem. I’m sure people who have lived under Marxism would beg to differ.</p>
<p>The avatars of capitalism and communism (the USA and USSR respectively) both had to build walls on their borders.</p>
<p>One had to build it to keep people out. The other had to build it to keep people in.</p>
<p>That being said, Marxism should be studied along with Keyesnianism, monetarism, and the rest as an economic theory to be considered critically.</p>
<p>Marxism itself is not any worse than all those other economic theories, but good execution of it demands a lot of discipline and organization.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t pure Marxism implemented, it is generally implemented under a totalitarian government. Marxism is better for humanity than capitalism in the purest form, but neither works by itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is probably true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is definitely true.</p>