Again, I'm not replying to all of this nonsense here. You can have a look at the article when it comes out.

I'll just point out that the relevance of any scientific model is that a real-world system's behaviour is supposed to approximate the posited nomic relations. Therefore, it's irrelevant if the model's assumptions aren't perfectly satisfied by the system, as long as they nevertheless model the real patterns. That's what generates the system's tendency to conform to the model's predictions.

The fallacy here, then, is yours. You're attempting to render the economists' models immune to falsification by implying that they're wholly counterfactual or that they don't "entail" certain ideal outcomes unless the preconditions are perfectly satisfied. None of that's relevant because of the possibility of approximation.

If the models weren't even approximated by real capitalist societies, economics would be sheer fantasy, and the models would be like, say, Harry Potter novels. Instead, the models are supposed to be scientific, so the generalizations are supposed to be satisfied by the system's behaviour over the long run or in general (with some exceptions, given the mere approximations).

Instead, however, because of the evident capture of this field by the powers that be, the neoclassical models and the method are effectively propaganda and apologies for the natural, obfuscated outcomes of capitalism.

And no, the "core" of actual scientific theories isn't any unfalsifiable part. You're viewing science through the lens of propagandistic economics.