On the surface, the scenes with the Communists poke fun at Marxism. Yet, one may also spot a dig at (neo)classical economics seeking to justify Capitalism "scientificly":
- "If you understand economics, you can actually write down what will happen in the future with as much confidence as you write down the history of the past, because it's science. It's not make-belief." In the 19th century (neoclassical) economics has been established with the aspiration of scientific accuracy, comparable to physics. Economists thought themselves to be physicists of economy/society, being able to figure out macroeconomic processes, like physicists physical processes. Yet, since then, there have been quite a number of unforeseen economic crises, bringing that aspiration into question.
- "Man is unitary, a simple economic agent" (comparable to physics' particles), "we all pursue our own economic interest": the "homo oeconomicus", rationally acting in his own best interest.
- Professor Marcuse's line "in pursuing our interest with vigor we accelerate the dialect and hasten the end of history and the creation of the New Man" is rationalizing egoism, like the "Invisible Hand" of the "Free Market". Act selfishly and, for society as a whole, everything will just work out fine.
- Neoclassical economics neglects (certain) monetary aspects: "We're not even talking about money, we're talking about economics."
- A central term of neoclassical economics is "equi-librium", which offers an alternative angle at the equus/aequus wordplay mentioned before. Also, left of the fireplace there are two antique pictures of men carrying yokes, for whom "equilibrium" is essential within the process of carrying out their work.
It's kind of Communists trapped in Capitalism; a bit like in "The Hudsucker Proxy": a Preston Sturges hero trapped in a Frank Capra plot. ;-)
Bottomline: there's economic reality and then there's a mathematical model of this reality. One might get so bedazzled by (the beauty of) its mathematical truth and/or its affirmation of one's view of reality, that one elevates it to an absolute truth without bothering to check the model's connection to reality, which science is about. The "little guy", the "regular Joe", may shrug his shoulders and say: "Beats me!" Yet, the results of those models get used by politicians to justify their decisions.
reply
share