We've been through all that before and we're repeating ourselves. I'll just say that the point about "misreading" was directed at your wording: "You took neoclassical economics to task for using math because you said that the math hides the unrealistic assumptions."

Again, the problem isn't the use of math, but the scientistic ulterior motive which exploits the open-endedness of mathematical invention. The emphasis isn't on math but on the scientistic, propagandistic misuse of math.

Yes, you pointed to the underlying assumptions, but your statement emphasizes the use of math, as if that's the main problem. The ulterior motives could be hidden with rhetoric rather than math. True, math is a useful shield because it's impenetrable to outsiders. But math can be used for good or for ill, so no I'm not criticizing economists just for using math.

And the instability (self-destructiveness) of capitalism would include the damage done to the biosphere due to economic growth.