Reddit reviews The ABCs of Political Economy: A Modern Approach

I've always aspired to be an economist, but I always knew there was something drastically wrong with the economic discipline itself. I want to know what it was and how to fix it. Still do.

But this book, The ABC's of Political Economy: A Modern Approach by Robin Hahnel is a fantastic, in depth book that explains how mainstream economics works and what exactly is wrong with it. At the beginning, he explicitly says the perspectives he lays out are informed by feminist, anarchist, and Marxian theories, which really surprised me. And the book is ridiculously clear. Since it's supposed to help readers understand economic decisions, Robin Hahnel actually connects theory to real world events, and shows the reader how to do the same.

Excellent book. Would recommend if you're looking to really get into the guts of capitalism and why exactly it's exploitative from an economic point of view and not just the common sociological perspectives.

The ABC's of Political Economy: A Modern Approach

From Chapter 1: Economics and Liberating Theory:

>The liberating theory presented in this chapter attempts to transcend historical materialism without throwing out the baby with the bath water. It incorporates insights from feminism, anti-colonial and anti-racist movement, and anarchism, as well as from mainstream psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology where useful. Liberating theory attempts to understand the relationship between economic, political, kinship and cultural activities, and the forces behind social stability and social change, in a way that neither over nor underestimates the importance of economic dynamics, and neither over nor underestimates the importance of human agency compared to social forces.

And then he uses liberating theory throughout the book, but it definitely has a focus on economics.

Would absolutely recommend. It actually changed my mind on a few things.

There's a difference between "philosophy of economics" and "economics which is philosophical in nature." The former is a specific field with economics, having to do with an examination of economic methodology as its currently practiced from an analytical philosophical point of view. Examples of this include Daniel Hausman - "The Inexact And Separate Science of Economics" and Alexander Rosenberg - "Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns?"

As for "economics which is philosophical in nature," the term you're looking for is "political economy." Largely speaking, this is the domain of classical economics, and modern economics has very little or nothing to say about broader political or moral questions (although assumptions about the answers to those questions are embedded in the theory, IMO). This tradition did survive somewhat into the 20th century with Keynes on one side and Hayek/Mises on the other. Some heterodox economists, especially of the Marxian/radical persuasion, try to keep the political economy tradition alive. See Robin Hahnel - the ABCs of Political Economy.

Speaking of my own perspective though, as someone influenced by critical theory and continental philosophy, I think that economics as it is currently practiced is largely a form of capitalist ideology concealing itself as "science." There's a reason why economics is no longer philosophical - because it wants to retain its narrow focus as a purely "positive" discipline (as opposed to normative). Derrida would have a field day deconstructing it. And many people operating in the critical theory tradition and humanities strongly resist the kind of totalizing narrative that economics wants to weave about how humans "naturally" and "objectively" relate to each other as homo economicus utility maximizers. My suggestion is that if you're really interested in broader philosophical questions, stick with philosophy. Modern economics has little tolerance for such questions. (I wish I knew this before embarking in graduate school in economics, which I ended up dropping out of).