Repost of review:
The one thing Bockman gets right is that many of the economists that contributed to stuff that today is among the sources of mainstream economic thought wrote publications that if espoused in the 1990s would get you branded as a leftwing extremist. Walras shilled for the land-value tax, Abba Lerner was a socialist in his youth. And it isn't really hidden, though it's not something that mainstream brainlets are usually aware of.
Lots of statements in the book are either false, nonsensical, or so vague they can mean anything. The author is simply not cut for logical thinking. It's weird to imagine somebody spending so much time talking to economists about the themes of this book over a span of several decades and not understanding a fucking thing. Her writing is like that of a person suffering from Williams syndrome. She presents Marxists as dogmatic and neoclassical economists as more reality-based. It isn't really clear to the reader (and probably herself) how she distinguishes the camps. She presents marginalist reasoning as in Marshall and the econ intro book by Samuelson/Nordhaus as neoclassical, but also the very different general equilibrium stuff. I would focus on the former, because that's what hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and the public at large learn in econ101. That's what influences them. How could some type of theorizing be influential if nobody reads it?
According to Bockman, any sort of input-output modeling is also neoclassical. Who cares that you can't get from a model with supply and demand curves (most price-quantity combinations in that you make up and don't measure) and assuming that markets for distinct products don't influence each other to an input-output model of physical quantities connecting everything or vice versa? Indeed, working with the input-output modeling makes you lose faith in the curves for supply and demand. But who cares if these ways of thinking don't fit together and give completely different results, right? Otto Neurath looked at inputs and outputs of production in physical terms and she thinks that makes him a fucking neoclassical economist!
Who else is a neoclassical economist? Do you know what linear programming is? Then you are one, too. <-This is what Johanna Bockman actually believes.
According to her, Marxists were just all about writing polemics and justifying the party line by quote-mining all day and only the cool neoclassical kids were doing the Real Science(TM) with input-output and quantitative analysis. Quantitive analysis, what the fuck, no qualifications given here to a term so generic. Apparently, she believes anybody using stats, anybody using numbers for anything ever, can't be a Marxist. And anybody using numbers for any bullshit models is doing serious science.
She mixes up Pareto-efficient with stable.
What fares better than the polemical Russkies is le undogmatic Yugo shit, she doesn't mention their massive unemployment problem. Indeed, the very words unemployment and underemployment don't show up even once in the entire fucking book. Zero stars.