Despite the pervasive trust in the efficiency of self-regulating capitalistic systems, it can be argued that the meta-theoretical framework of orthodox economics contradicts the principles of democracy and thereby causes more problems than it solves. While there are several potential ideological flaws within neoclassical economics, I will be focusing the axiological theory of value. Within the orthodox meta-theoretical framework, price is equated to value, which can obscure the true intrinsic value of things including not only tangible goods, but also societal commons. Moreover, this concept of market valuation can be considered an oversimplification of value and arguably can hinder fundamental democratic objectives such as human liberation, equality, and environment sustainability. Heterodox economics, however, postulates that value is a socially determined construct and is relatively subjective in nature. For these reasons, I contend that the heterodox approach to economics presents a more compelling methodology of assigning value to things. Following is a brief analysis of both the orthodox and heterodox approaches to economics and the influence the axiological ideologies of each has on the productivity democracy. Neoclassical economics operates on the basis that perfect competition …show more content…
Moreover, government systems tend to be pressured by capitalism/corporate agendas, which can cause the government to work against the pursuit of societal progression and liberation. Accordingly, the government fundamentally helps control the freedoms and rights that individuals can acquire through the free market system (Patel, 2009, pp. 115-118). Arguably, this relationship between free markets and the government voids the implication that capitalism promotes