Economic schools and classes

Sociologically, societies are composed of classes. Groups that earn different incomes based on different jobs and their positions in a workplace form different classes. The definition of class is made in different ways using various criteria such as income and the type of work performed. In this article, I will discuss the classes formed according to income levels and examine how different schools of economics approach the subject. 

I will briefly examine each school of economics in the context of the concept of social class, by classifying them generally as mainstream doctrine and Marxist doctrine. As is known, the mainstream school of thought begins with microeconomics. In the introduction to microeconomics, consumer preference is addressed, and by establishing a balance between consumer preference and the budget constraint, it is decided what will be produced in the economy. In the advanced stages of the model, the representative consumer preference is generalized, and issues such as how much will be produced and for whom it will be produced are brought to the agenda, thus creating integrity in the system. While the mainstream doctrine starts with consumer preference in the product market, it takes the income distribution formed in the factor market as a given.  

In factor market analysis, factors of production earn factor incomes as a result of production activities. In other words, the consumer used as a representative consumer in the product market first earns income in the factor market during the economic process and puts this income into play as a consumer budget constraint in the product market, thereby directing the market according to the determined purchasing power. In other words, roughly speaking, the consumer model is developed in mainstream doctrine by ignoring income distribution and the social classes formed according to income distribution. In the advanced stages of the doctrine, by assuming that the incomes of the factors of production are determined according to their marginal contribution to production, both unemployment and exploitation phenomena are ignored, and the system is constructed within the framework of a perfectly working model.

The source of the belief in mainstream doctrine that all social and economic problems will be solved within the market system is also based on these views. Although, in the face of unemployment and other social and political problems that have emerged over time, situations of underemployment or imbalance based on the Keynesian view have been included in the doctrine, the classical doctrine continues as the general system. One reason for this insistence is the preservation of the view of the perfection of capitalism as a system, despite serious socio-economic problems such as unemployment and imbalance. With this insistence, despite its significant flaws, the mainstream doctrine is not only used to understand and explain the system, but also maintains its place in education as an unwavering defender of the system.

Unlike the mainstream doctrine, Marxist economic doctrine starts with commodity production and looks at the factor shares of production factors in the first stage. In addition to this fundamental difference that separates Marxist doctrine from mainstream doctrine, the view held in mainstream doctrine that factors of production receive shares according to their marginal contribution to production is also abandoned in Marxist doctrine. In Marxist doctrine, while workers participating in production receive the equivalent of the labor power they sell based on their working hours rather than the value they produce, the rest of the created value is seized by the boss. The difference between them is defined as exploitation. The most important feature that distinguishes Marxist theory from mainstream doctrine is that it introduces the phenomenon of exploitation and rejects the view that labor receives a share equal to the marginal value it adds to production.

When we look at societies, unemployment, poverty, and hunger on one side, and extreme wealth and waste on the other, fit the Marxist doctrine much more than the mainstream doctrine. In the current state of development of capitalism, while labor productivity increases, the capital share rises, the labor share as wages decreases, and an income distribution is formed that resembles a crocodile's mouth. Despite the existence and intractability of social classes formed with these and similar clear images, the fact that Marxist doctrine is not accepted as a standard doctrine and used in education is intended to mask the overt state of capitalism in the social environment. In this case, while social classes are gradually fed into social perception on the one hand, social explosions are tried to be prevented by introducing religious narcotics on the other.

The subject of social classes does not only create division and clustering among social communities. These divisions and clusterings also cause social problems. While social state policies, which are introduced as a solution to the problems of unemployment and poverty that are products of capitalism, are seen as short-term solutions to social problems, they actually represent nothing more than a policy of compensating for the social problems created by the pressure and exploitation experienced in production with meaningless costs. Besides the humanistic nature of the Marxist system, where the social problems created by capitalism are not experienced with the same production but with a full employment and exploitation-free model, its economic and social superiority is also evident. 

What is happening today is less about which system is more effective and efficient, and more about by whom and how political decisions are made. While economic decisions in the Marxist system are made in the direction of social benefit, in the capitalist system, they are made by forces based on wealth in the direction of maintaining that wealth, even if it is contrary to social benefit and social justice. It is for this reason that Marxist doctrine is rejected in the education system, and mainstream doctrine is kept in operation despite all its flaws.