Understanding is a path and process, not a destination you arrive at quickly and need to defend from change. Marxian thought is just a moment in time. Your highlighting of the egregious contradictions in this are often right, but engaging with the society that produced them can't be an outside-in process because it's your society, too. Your moral force is derived from the things that society gets right, and there's no alternative but to hold one's nose and work with what is.
I would encourage you to go back to each discipline in its own right. I once spent a split-shift break working through an introduction to micro- and macro-economics textbook (I once had a horrible shift whereby you work half your day early and half your day late to catch clients before and after work, and had a 4-hour break or such in the middle which was too short to bother commuting all the way home and back again).
I just wasn't satisfied in critiquing something I didn't understand from afar. It felt as flawed as engaging the big bad world without leaving the confines of Melbourne.
This book by a very moderate and personable economist looks at the strengths and weaknesses of conventional economics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_About_MarketsThe Truth About Markets looks at why market economies performed better than socialist or centrally directed ones. The book looks at markets in a number of different settings around the world.
https://www.johnkay.com/product/the-tru ... t-markets/
Most moderate economists are fully aware of the pitfalls of their own discipline and economic models. But embedded within are ideas like future value, opportunity cost and the productivity frontier help make policy more concrete. Rather than being 'right', good policy is mostly just somewhat better, with that upside accumulating over time, hopefully expontentially in a J curve, much the way compound interest works.
Sometimes, things change radically, for better or worse, but you can't prepare for that except through risk and opportunity management practices, minimising damage or maximising fortune. In this case, people didn't hedge against the risk of that nutcase Netanyahu having his way, and stopped pursuing betterment and normalisation on either humane grounds or just in case something went askew such as a major terrorist attack, which was always on the cards. This was highly irresponsible, but also that ba$tard's preference, barely concealed if at all.
Edits: M2M, I will move on from the prior discussion. I will sign off on those discussions with this: hard theory is always internally driven.
