What do you mean “that’s not a thing?” I don’t believe he’s ever explicitly called himself a Marxist but he has cited Marx as an influence on his works, as a professor of economics.
One of Harris’s most notable contributions to economics is his 1978 monograph Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution, which is a critique of orthodox economic theories that provides an alternative, synthesizing the work of David Ricardo, Kalecki, Marx, Roy Harrod, and others. Harris employs mathematical modeling to explore the relationship between the accumulation of capital and income inequality, economic growth, economic instability, and other phenomena, arguing that typical theories fail to adequately consider power, class, and historical context.
It seems basically true that he’s a Marxist professor of economics. It’s just not really relevant to Kamala since she’s an entirely different person.
Also, any economist worth their salt has studied Marxism to some degree. Love him or hate him, Marx is one of the most influential economists in history!
If someone called him a Ricardian professor of economics and someone else was like, “Lol that’s not a thing” I’d say that the first person was more right than the second, with the same disclaimers I said in my comment.
Again, I think the whole issue is silly. Kamala is not her father. And I don’t see being a Marxist as being a bad thing. Considering how much the term gets slung around in US politics to people it doesn’t apply to at all, like Kamala Harris or Obama, I think it’s kind of silly to push back against it when it’s being used with someone who could credibly be called a Marxist. Especially when the much more clear and relevant line is that her father is irrelevant.
I laughed out loud at the debate where he said Harris’ father was a “marxist professor of economics”. That is not a thing.
What do you mean “that’s not a thing?” I don’t believe he’s ever explicitly called himself a Marxist but he has cited Marx as an influence on his works, as a professor of economics.
It seems basically true that he’s a Marxist professor of economics. It’s just not really relevant to Kamala since she’s an entirely different person.
Also, any economist worth their salt has studied Marxism to some degree. Love him or hate him, Marx is one of the most influential economists in history!
Why not a Ricardian? I guess it doesn’t have that same zing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281638136_Impact_of_Karl_Marx_on_scholarly_World_A_Scientometric_Study
If someone called him a Ricardian professor of economics and someone else was like, “Lol that’s not a thing” I’d say that the first person was more right than the second, with the same disclaimers I said in my comment.
Again, I think the whole issue is silly. Kamala is not her father. And I don’t see being a Marxist as being a bad thing. Considering how much the term gets slung around in US politics to people it doesn’t apply to at all, like Kamala Harris or Obama, I think it’s kind of silly to push back against it when it’s being used with someone who could credibly be called a Marxist. Especially when the much more clear and relevant line is that her father is irrelevant.