/lit/ - Literature

>>23495819
You are better off reading so called 'Communitarian Law' and think tanks palming off white papers to the U.N. Serious communists don't bother with Marx's economic theory-- it's all shit; take the Keynes reigns and run with it.

>>23495819
The whole UMass Amherst economics department is marxist, maybe start there.

>>23495819
there is no 'Marxian economics', economics is just thinly veiled politics, a deeply unserious field. Capital takes down the entire field of economics so you're already ahead. you've already mentioned Shaikh but i'd also recommend Philip Mirowski

>>23495819
Try Andrew Kliman and Michael Lebowitz. Also confirming that Heinrich is very worth reading. I wouldn't recommend the others except maybe Mandel.

>>23496370
I've never heard of it before. Thanks.
>>23496385
I should have been more clear. Critique of political economy.
I do agree that economics is not a good field, not scientific and that it is pure ideology.
>>23496425
Thanks.

>>23495819
>what other economic literature should I read?
Nitzan J., Bichler Sh. - Capital as Power (2009) (specifically, its chapters on Marxism)


>Paul Cockshott
https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/
https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_bichler_testing_the_ltv_exchange_web.htm

"Cockshott claims that this isn’t the case with Marx’s labour theory of value. Unlike the neoclassical util, the elementary particle of Marxism – socially necessary abstract labour time – can be objectively observed and measured. ‘It is possible’, he says, ‘to use input-output tables to work out how many hours of labour went into producing the total output of each industry’.

But this claim is false.

In fact – and as Cockshott knows full well – the only way to ‘know’ labour values is the neoclassical way: by revelation. Whereas neoclassicists assume that prices reveal utils, Marxists assume that prices reveal socially necessary abstract labour time. And that is it.

As they stand, the quantities of utils and labour values exist not as empirical observations, but as religious-like visions. They emerge not from open-ended research and scientific exploration, but from circular rituals that make them true by definition."

>>23495819
>I've been interested in Marxian economics for a while now.

>>23495819
>>23497377
>>23497394

>>23497304
>Thanks.
Forgot to mention Paul Sweezy and John Roemer, check them out too. Also someone here mentioned UMass, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis are worth your time but the extent to which they're Marxist is questionable. Robert Paul Wolff has some economic texts worth reading (e.g. “A Critique and Reinterpretation of Marx’s Labor Theory of Value”) but he's more of a philosopher than an economist. I wouldn't recommend other UMass economists I know of.

>>23495819
The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and His Followers, Thorstein Veblen

https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/veblen/soc-econ.htm