Rosa Luxenburg on economics

I'm reading a book (yes, it's true!) by Andrea Nye called Philosophia: The thought of Rosa Luxenburg, Simone Weil and Hannah Arendt (1994) Nye presents three thinkers - three thinkers that have been quite overlooked in the history of philosophy. But Nye has a project of her own, too, beyond that of a mere presentation. She is critical of contemporary feminist theory, and she uses the philosophy of Arendt, Weil and Luxenburg to articulate a position of her own. Even though some of her points are quite all right, the ever-recurring, dismissive slurs directed at "academic feminists" are quite tiresome and sloppy, too. But I haven't read the whole book yet, either.

The section devoted to Rosa Luxenburg was very interesting. I was not familiar with Luxenburg's ideas at all - all I knew about her had to do with her political activism (and death). Nye's description of Luxenburg's views on economics was particularly enlightening. Luxenburg was, at least in Nye's reading, not an orthodox marxist. Her position was that of the constant outsider, disliked by most for her outspoken and non-orthodox views. Neither did she conceive of Marx' tehory about capital, accumulation and the end of capitalism as Gospel. Luxenburg was, Nye says, a thinker who placed openness to different experiences - contact with reality - at the fore. For this reason, she was very worried by the importance many of Marx' followers attached to matemathical models. Marx, too, in the same way as bourgeoisie economists, relied too heavily, thoughtlessly, on matemathical models intended to explain economic phenomena. According to Luxenburg (again: this is Nye's interpretation) economics is to be understood mainly from the point of view of those who are affected by things we would call "economics". Luxenburg found contradictions and difficulties in Marx' views of accumulation (how is surplus value created?) and his view of capitalism. Luxenburg argued that these difficulties were brushed aside using the elegance of matemathical models. Luxenburg herself highlighted the role of imperialism and militarism in creating new forms of economic exploitation. Economics is a social phenomenon, even though many economists do their best to obfuscate it. Nye writes, and I find this very interesting:

"Economic models do not prove anything, they are useful as illustrations of thoughts, like 'maps or diagrams'. They cannot replace thought, cannot be a substitute for thought. Once a model is derived, thought cannot stop because a supposedly absolute truth has been achieved. [...] To make more models, or to complicate existing models, cannot help if the subordination of modeling to thinking is not understood. Marx, in the process of thinking about political economy, illustrated his critical insights in revised economic models that brought out the role of surplus value in the productive process. At the same time, his thinking shared many of the limitations of classical economic thought. What makes his models useful, Luxenburg argued, even for Marx himself, is that with them Marx was able to expose contradictions in his thinking." (pp. 36-37)

and also:

"When models are seen as a revealed plan for necessary relations embedded in a ideal economic reality, there is no expansion of thought and understanding. Thought stops. Economists, capitalists and marxists, tinker with their models, use their ingenuity to factor out discrepancies, redefine variables so that data will fit schema, jealously claim immunity from criticism for their most questionable assumptions. Meanwhile, the economic lives of working men and women are unleavened by understanding and thought." (38)

I wonder what modern economists would say here. But it is interesting that Luxenburg is better known for having been murdered than she is for her ideas on economics. At least to me, this approach to economics - situating it in the complexities of social life and experiences - seems very fruitful. Luxenburg's thoughts are subversive in their challenge of economic expertise.