For the things of life, I go back to the Political Economy subject. This subject can be very interesting, as it is the branch of the economy that studies economic systems. However, in the material that has reached my hands, in the macroeconomic study the concept of “balance” prevails, the role of the state is Keynesian or neoliberal, and socialism is the economic system of the Soviet Union, that is, authoritarian centralized planning. The lesson is based on economic orthodoxy, although the shortcomings and defects of these approaches have become clear in the twenty-first century. Even knowing this, it continues to be taught in academia to my surprise.

The foundations of intellectual training are fundamental; feminism shows us that, according to the glasses we use, we will have one or another vision of the world. To transform this world, these glasses will impose conditions on us. In the field of political economy, it is important to identify the studies received. What mentalities or ideologies are behind? Does the plurality of ideas prevail, promoting critical vision, or has a single reality (or only some) been aseptically and scientifically worked?

For example, in the workplace, the minimum wage and trade unions influence the balance of this market. Taking balance as an objective, with the neoclassical theory behind it, the influence of these two elements will be negative, moving away from the balance of price and quantity. Consequently, will higher wages and better working conditions be negative? For whom? Moreover, it has been shown that it cannot be said that the increase in the minimum wage has a negative impact on the level of empleo.Por on the other
side, we have the marginal markets, the most significant example of which is the European electricity market. A competitive market is marginal: all units are exchanged at the price that marks the last unit entering the market. Economics is taught in schools, uncritically, as if something were natural. In view of the last direction of the electricity price, as well as the interests behind it, we are suffering from the dark aspects of the neutered apparatus. It is a competitive marginal market, according to experts (neoclassics).

The same is true of socialism. In most economic faculties, when the state applies central planning it is taught that it is socialism. It is opposed to the “free” market, being the medium between the two a mixed economy. This simplification contributes to the spread of drugs such as the political motto “socialism or freedom”. In short, what seems logical is behind a very great ideological burden.

That is the logic behind the explanations of many traditional economists. Dispense with the complexities of economic reality, or use technical words to select certain options that are ideological. Today, when economics is still taught, this logic remains in force.

We need integrative, multidisciplinary approaches that leave behind separate and isolated compartments. We have to overcome the traditional economic science, which is the champion in the restrictive perspectives. As Joan Robinson said, the study of economics is not intended to get previous answers to economic questions, but to learn not to be fooled by economists.