• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

ECOP Question/Opinion (1 Viewer)

wagga

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
124
Location
Northern Beaches
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Erm. How many ECOP courses have you taken? :confused:

When I took the courses they weren't shoving Marxism down everybody's throat.
Done 1001 and 1003, currently doing 3012.

Just as an example, last week my tutor said point blank that neoliberal policies had enslaved the third world. When I even dared to question him he suggested that I was an imperialist...This week, he claimed he believed in the labour theory of value.

Ditto with Silver Persian.

Also, the ECOP subjects have suggested many alternative solutions to the neoliberal view of markets in terms of development and progress. So I dont know where you are getting this whole 'offer no solution therefore it cant be taken seriously' from.
In the first year subjects to an extent, but in 3012 basically every theory is assessed through a Marxist perspective, insofar as that any non - Marxian perspective is rigorously criticised (which is fine in and of itself), but the problem comes in that the criticism of Marxist/feminist perspectives etc. are assessed in a manner nowhere near as critical.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,492
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Done 1001 and 1003, currently doing 3012.

Just as an example, last week my tutor said point blank that neoliberal policies had enslaved the third world. When I even dared to question him he suggested that I was an imperialist...This week, he claimed he believed in the labour theory of value.
Well that is highly retarded tutoring behaviour.

But I wouldn't tar the entire department with the "uncritical dogmatic Marxist" brush.
 

flaganarchy

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
256
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I am liking ECOP 1001 atm.... as basically everyone does....
I ran into my tutor Mark arguing with a Socialist Alternative member.... Marxism is apparently not good enough for him... lol... he basically is a self-confessed anarchist... (wants no nations/classes, promotes violence as a means towards that goal) He is pretty cool though, he dresses like a rock star :p
Generally most people have said that there ECOP1001 tutors are pretty blatantly left wing...
your tutor sounds too closed minded for my liking... can anyone tell me how they pick tutors at USYD?
 

nick1689

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
235
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
This week, he claimed he believed in the labour theory of value.
Wait, what's so bad about the labour theory of value? It's a completely logical theory... You sure youre not just highly biased against anything slightly marxian?
 

bustinjustin

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
371
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Wait, what's so bad about the labour theory of value? It's a completely logical theory... You sure youre not just highly biased against anything slightly marxian?
PE at usyd basically presents every theory from a Marxist perspective; IMO it doesn't present a balanced view of economics. As I said, the reason it was kicked out of the faculty of E&B was that it wasn't seen as being 'real' economics. The department are more than happy to point out the problems with capitalism, but are unwilling to put any reasonable solutions for the issues they raise, which makes it hard to take anything they say seriously.
Start rant.

This 'reds under the beds' line from you is kinda getting old, I feel the need to intervene (no pun intended), to alleviate any fears others may have from your posts. And having done a double major in ECOP (meaning I've done more units than most) I'd say I'm perfectly qualified. I am also not a socialist alternative, and would say that I have become more moderate through my studies in P.E.

For the unitiated (and others have already indicated), P.E/ECOP is designed to be a more holistic, more philosophical/sociological/historical/political approach to the study of economic issues. Put another way, whereas 'economics' is the physics of the study of economics (atomistic, mathematical, sum-of-all-parts), ECOP is more like biology (earthy, evolutionary, etc). Whereas Economics asserts itself as an objective 'science', P.E questions whether there can really be a value-free study of economic issues, when economic phenomena are actually social phenomena (and social beings are erratic, not rational, individuals). This is a source of intellectual disagreement between the two disciplines.

As for the Marxian content in ECOP, this is not the be all end all of ECOP. One way to look at it is that the P.E curriculum is like a public school's enrolments- it has to include everybody. But at the end of the day, particular schools deal with particular matters. Just as Neoclassical economics is one of the few (if not the only) schools of thought with a comprehensive theory on price formation in the short term (and P.E recognises this), so too is Marxian/post Marxian theory one of the only schools that are concerned with the notion of 'exploitation' (whatever that may be). There's no choice really, if holism in education is one of the objectives of the discipline.

Your opinions on 'biased' tutoring are perfectly valid, but complaints about the Marxian content in P.E and leftist tutors seem to be a recurring theme from you. Just because Marxist views are discussed doesn't mean the course is pure indoctrination as you portray it to be (and learning about Marxian or post Marxian theory doesn't make one a communist). And just because one may disagree with a subject or theory doesn't mean he or she shouldn't study it. An intimate knowledge of a subject better helps one to critique it. I'd go further and argue that ECOP students should study some micro and macro so they truly know what they're talking about if and when they critique the orthodoxy, and ECON studies do some P.E so they understand the philosophies behind the textbook formulae and multiple graphs they apply. Ironically, ECON and ECOP might actually complement each other.

As for ECOP tutors in general, sure, they're not perfect, no one is, but on a whole, they're highly professional (I've been taught by a wide range, and know several personally, and I can safely say that they'd be equally critical of orthodox Marxian theory). As easy as it is to jump to this conclusion, to reduce ECOP to a mere left-right political battle is a gross misrepresentation of the merits of the discipline. Frankly, it's an undeserved and unwarranted.

I mean what is this, the 1950s? The Cold War ended two decades ago.

As for the socialist alternative element in the P.E cohort - yes, it's there, but it's everywhere, and it's not everyone in P.E. A lot of so called 'socialists' are the descendants of Mosmanites anyway, roughing it as commies for a bit of street cred, so you can never take them too seriously (and nor can you take them as ideal representations of the "left", whatever that may be).

It sounds like you're desperately unhappy with P.E and are probably doing it as part of Int Studies or Ec. Soc. Sci. You might do well to keep these caveats in mind. Also, dare I suggest that you do some of the more advanced, theoretical senior ECOP units in third year (they're the Pre hons units, but have changed names this year) Edit: this is where you truly dissect each school of thought - not just neoclassical, marxian and L.T.V, but you're also (re-)introduced to post keynesian, french regulation school, spatial P.E (economic geography), institutional economics (both old and new) and many more.

Or at the very least, consider ECOP2011 with Joseph Halevi (that surely will change your perception of P.E). You might've been better off doing ECOP2011 (or ECOP2016 as its now coded), rather than ECOP3012 straight after first year.

I don't mean to denigrate you, but feel there's been some misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

End rant.
 
Last edited:

bustinjustin

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
371
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Done 1001 and 1003, currently doing 3012.

Just as an example, last week my tutor said point blank that neoliberal policies had enslaved the third world. When I even dared to question him he suggested that I was an imperialist...This week, he claimed he believed in the labour theory of value.



In the first year subjects to an extent, but in 3012 basically every theory is assessed through a Marxist perspective, insofar as that any non - Marxian perspective is rigorously criticised (which is fine in and of itself), but the problem comes in that the criticism of Marxist/feminist perspectives etc. are assessed in a manner nowhere near as critical.
I didn't see this comment at first.

1. Marxian theories are more systematically deconstructed and critiqued in the more theoretical units (hence my suggestion to consider them, even if only as a pass unit). But in the case of ECOP3012, since neoclassical views are so entrenched in the Global P.E, policies and institutions, the focus of critiques will subsequently be on whatever the accepted orthodoxy is. I didn't do Global P.E (but do know one of the tutors, actually I might mention this next time I see them), so I cant comment much further.

2. Btw, have you ever actually asked about this in class? (edit; reread your post, I see you've tried, or tried to challenge the tutor anyway)

3. Labour Theory of value - this is critiqued/discussed/renovated in detail in ECOP2011 and 3xxx theoretical units.

4. Enslavement of the third world with neoliberal policies - better to ask the 'third world'. Just because people try to help or say they help the third world doesnt mean they do, sad to say but always possibly true.

Also, critical theory also partly originates from Marx, which complicates matters (and of course, the same critical standards posited by Marx should also be applied to orthodox interpretations of Marx, as espoused by the likes of the socialist alternative).

Edit 2: Just to reiterate, with these posts, I don't think I can change your views or perceptions, but am hoping to clarify things and present a wider, bigger picture/
 
Last edited:

wagga

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
124
Location
Northern Beaches
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Well that is highly retarded tutoring behaviour.

But I wouldn't tar the entire department with the "uncritical dogmatic Marxist" brush.
Well I suppose I've had two tutors (had the same one for both the first year subjects) that I haven't really got along with, which probably goes a long way to explaining my opinion of the department.

I ran into my tutor Mark arguing with a Socialist Alternative member.... Marxism is apparently not good enough for him... lol... he basically is a self-confessed anarchist...
Yeah I wouldn't worry about the SA, even a lot of Marxists I have spoken to disagree with most of what they have to say.
I didn't see this comment at first.

1. Marxian theories are more systematically deconstructed and critiqued in the more theoretical units (hence my suggestion to consider them, even if only as a pass unit). But in the case of ECOP3012, since neoclassical views are so entrenched in the Global P.E, policies and institutions, the focus of critiques will subsequently be on whatever the accepted orthodoxy is. I didn't do Global P.E (but do know one of the tutors, actually I might mention this next time I see them), so I cant comment much further.

3. Labour Theory of value - this is critiqued/discussed/renovated in detail in ECOP2011 and 3xxx theoretical units.

4. Enslavement of the third world with neoliberal policies - better to ask the 'third world'. Just because people try to help or say they help the third world doesnt mean they do, sad to say but always possibly true. Certainly I realise there is a vast difference between what most Marxists believe and the economic systems of most communist countries, in reference to

Also, critical theory also partly originates from Marx, which complicates matters (and of course, the same critical standards posited by Marx should also be applied to orthodox interpretations of Marx, as espoused by the likes of the socialist alternative).

Edit 2: Just to reiterate, with these posts, I don't think I can change your views or perceptions, but am hoping to clarify things and present a wider, bigger picture/
Yeah everything you write here is perfectly reasonable; I took 3012 as I need to take units from a specific list to satisfy my degree (int studies). I can take 2012 next semester, so I might make the switch to that (atm am planning on doing 3014 - development economics).

I'm sorry if what I wrote came off as somewhat of a polemic rant, it wasn't my intention. I am probably just unlucky in that I got a couple of tutors I don't get along with.

Certainly I don't see their views as dangerous; nor do their views bear much if any similarity to what occurred in many communist countries (as in I don't view the PE department from a 'reds under the bed' type perspective).
 
Last edited:

bustinjustin

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
371
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Well I suppose I've had two tutors (had the same one for both the first year subjects) that I haven't really got along with, which probably goes a long way to explaining my opinion of the department.



Yeah I wouldn't worry about the SA, even a lot of Marxists I have spoken to disagree with most of what they have to say.


Yeah everything you write here is perfectly reasonable; I took 3012 as I need to take units from a specific list to satisfy my degree (int studies). I can take 2012 next semester, so I might make the switch to that (atm am planning on doing 3014 - development economics).

I'm sorry if what I wrote came off as somewhat of a polemic rant, it wasn't my intention. I am probably just unlucky in that I got a couple of tutors I don't get along with.

Certainly I don't see their views as dangerous; nor do their views bear much if any similarity to what occurred in many communist countries (as in I don't view the PE department from a 'reds under the bed' type perspective).

ECOP3014 P.E of development - highly useful if you want to enter that arena, but (in a good way), you'll never look at aid, trade, the developing world, or 'slumdog millionaire' in the same way again. Plus it is very in tune to ongoing debates re. current global crises. Unsurprisingly, it's critical, and confronting in some ways too for some (not as much as P.E of Human Rights though, ECOP3014 is tame compared to P.E of Human Rights), though the critiques are more explicitly poststructuralist/postcolonial/post-everything really.

Looking back, as predisposed as I may have been to liking ECOP, I too probably found myself feeling that ECOP might've been bordering on indoctrination at times (which is only natural when social values are espoused with such conviction, and of course whether this is a good thing or not is debatable). It's a feeling that can take a while to go away. After all, for many, it's their first time to study and use many of the theories in P.E. Certainly there are few, if not any, departments like P.E at any other university, let alone high school. But I think you do go from being weary of Marx as a crazy man with a scary beard to, as one friend in ECOP put it nicely, seeing him as just another "ideas man". So I think because of this initial unfamiliarity, one is more sensitive to the seeming biases of a course.

I also think it also helps if you're in tutes with a great bunch of intelligent, enthusiastic people from different walks of life. I've been very lucky with this, and certainly my positive experiences are probably because of the people I've done ECOP with (mainly through the Hons program).

I staunchly defend the P.E department and its program simply because if one sticks with it, I genuinely believe it makes one more intelligent in ways that few other departments can train you in. You could do worse...
 
Last edited:

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Wait, what's so bad about the labour theory of value? It's a completely logical theory... You sure youre not just highly biased against anything slightly marxian?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

LTV was discredited 100 years ago.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,492
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Discredited only by bourgeois scum who are interested in the suppression of class consciousness!
 

nick1689

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
235
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

LTV was discredited 100 years ago.
Im not saying I know much, ive only done like 2 and a half ecop units, but the LTV has always come across to be pretty logical

How was it discredited? Or does this just come down under difference of opinion between the different economic camps?...
 

cp3

New Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
17
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I just finished a course on ECOP1001, and i must say it was quite comprehensive and interesting. I'd done alot of background reading before i did the course so knew most of the theories and schools of thought concerning the content in the course.

I did HSC economics in high school and even though thats no substitute for an economics degree, the concepts and rigor in ECOP1001 was considerably less compared to 'economics'. Though its quite interesting that wagga mentioned the bias of the tutors. I was going into this thinking they were all left wing loons haha (i'm a leftie, anarchist specfically, myself but i'd like to think not as dogmatic) and i ended up with a very balanced and fair tutor. I dont really know where he stood on any of the issues at all, he played devils advocate for the most part. Whenever somebody would present a view he would try and shoot it down no matter its perspective, he just said he wanted us to have a through reasoning for our beliefs. I eventually found out he had an economics degree from UNSW and got his hons at USYD which i thought was quite good considering i presumed most formal economic teachers would be 'neo-classical' or keynesian and wouldn't be teaching P.E.

One thing i didn't like though was the amount of critque Frank Stilwell gave the neoclassical school of thought in his book. He needs to apply the same rigor of critque of the other schools if he's going to be so hard on neoclassical ideas. Though no doubt i still thought he was an awesome lecturer. His contempt or precieved contempt for neoclassical economics isn't as prevalent when you talk to him in real life. A few times after lectures i talked to him about how marxists and other schools neglect important trade offs with inflation etc. and he conceeded many times and seemed quite open but his books would say otherwise.

But on the whole, i do believe it when they say 'economics' is quite abstract and out of touch with reality at times. Economics is a social science not a science, you can't claim objective reasoning in a subject like this, economic systems may be unconciously developed by a multitude of humans but all in all it is a human construct and we have the ability to change what we create. Also its in no way a 'science', ECOP1001 i did for fun while my majors are in physics, mathematics and philosophy, and in no way does economic textbooks that i've read apply the same rigor that the sciences do. Economics no doubt is still in its embryonic stages and i believe that it could one day be a science if it develops but for now its too politicized and i doubt economics itself in the subject it is now will tell us anything about human economic managment and interests. I'm sure a psychologist deviod of any political ideology has a more chance of working out the intrinsic nature of human desire and apply it into how economic systems must be managed and developed for both efficiency and socially optimum goals. As a matter of fact, econophysics which uses statistical mechanics from physics applying it to economic phenomena has been quite successful and economists have been pissed becuase they're getting owned in their own field by physicsts who aren't ideologically persuaded by ideology.

Anyway seem to be getting off the point here. All in all ECOP1001 was awesome, but in times i could see the bias against neoclassical economics and for some weird reason seemed they seemed to love keynesian economics more than anything. But it pissed me off when they dismissed problems like stagflation as neoclassical filmsy assumptions which is fucked up lol because i think stagflation is quite a logical and coherent idea that happens and thats where keynesian economics fails at some point but nevertheless good all in all.

I think i'm going to pic a GOVT subject next semester, something that i think would be more pragmatic and more politically relevant i guess. Not saying P.E isn't just GOVT more practical.
 

Got2Kno91

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
82
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
As Sem 2 gets nearer the ECOP 1003 vs. ECOP 1004 gets more relevant. I'm still unsure. Any advice guys?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
60
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
i found ecop1003 highly enjoyabe, quite intresting topics and gives a nice view of trade/finance in a international context, bill is quite a nice guy aswell, the assessments i found were fairly easy, with bill telling you pretty much exactly whats in the exam in the last few lectures, i think the main differences between the two is that ecop1003 branchs out from what you did in ecop1001 but with ecop1004 you do more of the same sought of stuff you did in ecop1001 (i got this from talking to friends who did both ecop1004 and ecop1003).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top