Theory of psychology and theory of economics: should we forget Karl Marx?

Would Karl Marx have been upset to see what the world economy had become?
How much information can be a product of production ? How much information can be produced by billions of people?
The old linearity no longer works in the economy. In a networked society, a different structure and Marx's linear conditional and short-sighted regularities do not work everywhere, not in all spheres of life.
Right now, billions of people are communicating on the Internet . Communications are the main capital. Production loses its former essence. Information is more profitable than material goods. Marx turns over in his grave because his theory doesn't work.
Marx's limited modernism ended and postmodernism came. The economy is unpredictable and bifurcational. For economists, Marx's theory is a happy dream of the certainty and predictability of the system. Marx's crises are replaced by a catastrophe that will sweep away everything, since the world is now arranged differently, including the economy, which is only a part of the world of humanity. Wars and crises are past amusements of history. Now came the world of catastrophes, that is, what is spontaneous and unregulated by humanity. This is a different mindset. Marx's conventions fueled by Isthmus and diamat are inadequate and not relevant!

Marx did not take into account the arrival of the information society with the world's information social networks and the Internet.

In Marx , the production of material goods can be replaced by the production of services, but this is not the point. In any case, Marx is just a narrow sphere - the political economy of labor. And we have now come to the political economy of the sign! People buy signs and prestige, that is, information. And not everything is as linear as before. This is just one example that shows that Marx's modernism no longer works everywhere.

Should we forget Marx?

Some economic theorists know economics one-sidedly. It is also necessary to study the" Political Economy of the Sign " (J. Baudrillard), and not only to consider the Political Economy of Labor of Karl Marx. Not everything is so linear.
The ability to express a large amount of knowledge by the Convolution of this knowledge, that is, in short, is the true criterion for the availability of Knowledge. And this is felt during the discussion and dialogue with such economists. So far, they have only a declarative monologue and a defense of disorientation.

You can go from the end. Are the proletarians of all countries now united? And what and how is happening with the global economy? Now many earn and survive through other mechanisms. How has the capitalists ' use of people to create profits been transformed, in the context of the Internet society and the Internet society? To what extent has society lost its former sociality, in particular, its ability to revolutionize political power and the power of capital? To what extent can society be fed with handouts, given the means and values for survival?

It is clear that Marx's Political Economy of Labor works in separate sectors of the world economy ( pricing, supply and demand, etc.), but a significant component of the world economy has grown, which develops along a line that is almost impossible to describe with the conventions of Marx's theory. Everything is not always so linear and deterministic. Marx's theory is just a model that conditionally describes certain systems. But modern systems already have qualities and mechanisms that Marx's theory cannot describe. There are basic propositions of Marx that are already increasingly deviating from the Essence of the modern world economy.

Similarly, not always increasing the volume of a sound leads to an increase in the level of response to this sound. At some stage, the ear ceases to perceive this sound linearly. It is the same with capital processes. There are non-linearities, there are situations when Marx's conventions do not work. There are systems that do not behave according to their initial states, as was the case in classical science. And Marx's political economy is a classical science. In non-classical science, everything is different. The state and behavior of a system in non-classical science is determined not by the initial states, but by the situation, that is, by what enters it in the "here and now" mode. The world is more often played with dice, that is, it is determined by random processes.
Therefore, the world is now developing with a correction for the eternal confrontation of modern-postmodern, classical-non-classical.

And in general, do not forget that economics is a humanitarian science, since it has a large share of Subjective, unlike fundamental science. Although in fundamental science there is a lot of Subjective, Phenomenological and Anthropomorphic. Science is humanized and Nature laughs at this, that is, the imaginary Greatness of Man!

Knowledge is knowledge if it develops. Otherwise, they become dogmas. Newton's knowledge of Absolute time, thanks to Einstein, became a dogma. Astrophysics can no longer apply Newton. Modern real economic theorists have long used more than just Marx. It doesn't work, sometimes. There are such conditions.

The modern theory of economics is increasingly based on psychological theories. Currently, more and more often, the Nobel prizes are awarded to economic theorists who work on the synthesis of the theory of economics and the theory of psychology. These economists use the knowledge of a non-classical approach.
I laid the foundations of postmodern psychology and developed the scientific apparatus for the influence of this new direction on the modern economy. You can read about this in my scientific monograph "Fundamentals of Postmodern Psychology" (2015) :

https://psyfactor.org/lib/garifullin18.htm

Associate Professor of the Institute of Psychology and Education of KFU, Candidate of Psychological Sciences Ramil Garifullin