A political theorist thinks it's time to renovate economic theory, but can't make a coherent statement about it. First, she thinks Smith was renovated by Marx who was renovated by Keynes who was renovated by Friedman. OK, Friedman can be said to have renovated Keynes, perhaps, but the rest of that is gibberish. Taken literally she's saying Marx corrected Smith's errors. If so, Marx should be more foundational today than Smith, which is not the case nor even close.
With that wacky line of thought, she fails to see the core ideas that have been consistently present from Smith to the present in mainstream economics - which never included Marx, who renovated nothing at all.
Second, she repeats the falsehoods that contemporary mainstream economics sees humans as all Robinson Crusoes who live independently of and don't need each other. If you can't believe economists would be dumb enough to believe such a thing, you're right. The whole point of markets is to exchange with others because we have need (or mere desire) of what they have that we can't get by ourselves. She has the typical political scientist's shallow understanding of how economists think. I converse with economists all the time, and I have yet to hear any of them say anything like that.
Nor do I personally know any economists who think the only type of human organisation is through the price system. Perhaps there are some, but there are whole libraries of economic writing on crime, culture, family, religion, and so on. Economist John Baden studied why Mormons failed to make communal living work while the Hutterites have done so for centuries. Hint: It's not because they use prices.
I am really fed up with this kind of academic tourism. Before anyone starts talking about recreating a discipline's foundations, they need to understand that discipline not as a tourist, but as a native. But that takes a lot of work. I'm quite sure if done touristing economists said it's time to rebuild the foundations of political theory she's be pretty sharply questioning their knowledge of the field. She should equally challenge her knowledge of their field.