Book-length critiques of mainstream economic theory

[RNL]

What are the most thorough and comprehensive explanations of why Marxists are right and all mainstream, 'establishment' economists are wrong.

It seems to me that the argument that Marxism has been 'discredited' and that it's not taught or taken seriously in economics departments is quite a convincing one for some people who first encounter the debate.

I've looked at the critique of Marxism in my friend's economics textbook from secondary school (Ireland), and I could easily rebut every part of it, it was simply either bad misunderstandings or lies, which probably came directly from whatever sources they used.

So where are the serious book-length critiques of neo-classical/Austrian/Keynesian economics from a Marxist perspective? I say book-length because I want more than a rebuttal aimed at its ahistorical or idealist or a priori assumptions, I want a thorough critique.

[ZeroNowhere]

The best response to the idea that Marxism is discredited is probably Andrew Kliman's 'Reclaiming Marx's Capital', though I haven't yet read much in the way of good books focused on critique of modern mainstream economics.

[KC]

If you're looking for a critique of bourgeois economics I'd suggest Rudolf Hilferding's response to Eugene von Bohm-Bawerk (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm), as it is probably the best criticism of the subjectivist school I've read from a Marxist perspective. Bukharin also wrote a book (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/index.htm) criticizing the subjectivist school in general (Hilferding's work was simply directed at Bohm-Bawerk), but I don't think it is as good, due to his inferior writing style and method of presentation.

A former poster on this forum (ComradeRed) also highly recommended Debunking Economics (http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/) by Steve Keen, but I've never read it so I can't comment on its validity.

Your best starting point are Hilferding and Bukharin's works. You can find Hilferding's work coupled with Bohm-Bawerk's as well (http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Close-System-Bohm-Bawerks-Criticism/dp/0879912502/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269963685&sr=1-8) (which in my opinion is probably one of the very few criticisms of Marxism from a purely theoretical and academic point of view, and not based on political motives), but Hilferding's largely stands on its own if you don't want to read it (although I suggest you do).

I've written a few things on this subject, as has ComradeRed on this forum, so you could check those out too, even though they're not as in depth as you are looking for.

[Paul Cockshott]

What are the most thorough and comprehensive explanations of why Marxists are right and all mainstream, 'establishment' economists are wrong.

It seems to me that the argument that Marxism has been 'discredited' and that it's not taught or taken seriously in economics departments is quite a convincing one for some people who first encounter the debate.

I've looked at the critique of Marxism in my friend's economics textbook from secondary school (Ireland), and I could easily rebut every part of it, it was simply either bad misunderstandings or lies, which probably came directly from whatever sources they used.

So where are the serious book-length critiques of neo-classical/Austrian/Keynesian economics from a Marxist perspective? I say book-length because I want more than a rebuttal aimed at its ahistorical or idealist or a priori assumptions, I want a thorough critique.

Try Anti Samuelson by Marc Linder, it is about 30 years old but was a comprehensive critique of the standard textbook of neo-classical economics and was at least as long as the standard book.

[bailey_187]

Its not Marxist, but it is "anti-capitalist":

Robert Hahnel - ABCs of Political Economy

Its argues against many "neo-classical" economic theories such as the "theory of the firm", comparative advantage etc

[flobdob]

What has to be noted at first is that a lot of the critiques of Marx's theory from a mainstream perspective are utter nonsense that gets annihilated from even a cursory reading of a popularisation of Capital, let alone the book itself. There was a book that the LvMI published recently whose critiques of Marx's theory ranged from the "I've never read Marx but I'll say he said some stuff anyway" (a la "Marx believed value in commodities came from labour so what if a worker was lazy??!?!?!" - the sort of stuff that makes you want to slap your head in exasperation) to the downright nonsensical ("But what do you value more a photo of someone you've never met or of a loved one THEREFORE THE LTV IS WRONG!!!1!!). As such, I'd recommend that you just read Capital or even a popularisation of it to get what he was getting at, and you will see a lot of critiques of mainstream thought appear right before your eyes.


However, if you want some more in depth theoretical critiques, there's a wealth of material out there but unfortunately rarely compiled together. As has already been mentioned, the Hahnel book is a very solid critique of much of the orthodox macro and micro stuff, and Keen is also very good at this too, despite his inaccuracies with Marx that come through reading him in the light of Sraffa. There's no comprehensive critique I can think of, but there's definately been a lot of heterodox stuff critiquing orthodox theory. There was a particularly decent book from the 60s/70s which you should be able to pick up cheap off Amazon or something called "A Critique of Economic Theory" edited by Hunt and Schwarz, which collects a number of articles and extracts very critical of mainstream thought, though it's clearly moulded in that "Radical Political Economy" vein so popular in the 1970s. Some good contributions, albeit flawed, come from Dobb's "Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith" and Meek's "Studies in the Labour Theory of Value".

For a critique of a lot of mainstream monetary theory, Itoh and Lapavitsas wrote a brilliant book called "The Political Economy of Money and Finance", which draws insights from post-Keynesian perspectives and contextualises theory very well, and is generally a brilliant Marxian assessment of the theory of money, banking etc and critique of other theories -the section on free banking is especially good. For a lot of it though, if you read Theories of Surplus Value and Capital you should be pretty set, as a lot of mainstream theory is a rehashing of old stuff Marx took down long ago, especially with the resurgence of the Quantity Theory of Money. Also good is to check out the Cambridge Journal of Economics, which despite it's seemingly bourgeois name runs in the tradition of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Robinson and Kaldor, and also check out Capital and Class, Historical Materialism, Science and Society and Monthly Review.

[anticap]

David Schweickart(sp?) wrote a couple of books with "Capitalism" in the title, or, rather, he wrote the same book twice, which aren't meant specifically to debunk capitalism but to advance his market-socialist alternative... I've only skimmed them but I remember him rather effortlessly trampling several capitalist dogmas, in plain English no less. Might be worth checking out.

You say you want a book-length refutation, but really it isn't necessary. Capitalism is honestly just a bunch of nonsense cobbled together into a rickety scaffolding just stable enough to prop up the idiots in need of a perch from which to sing its praises. A few hammer-blows at the foundations will make kindling out of it.

[flobdob]

As an addendum, a word of warning. Sometimes you'll come across books with various titles like "Marx vs Keynes" or somesuch. These generally are highly polemical and pretty useless. Once in a while you may see a few good statements in them but they tend to vulgarise Keynes (and often in the process Marx), and just really aren't very good. There are some legitimate critiques of Keynesian theory and practical reality, but often these books don't have them. There's a lot of points where Keynes comes quite close to areas of Marx, and even provides certain insights very useful from a Marxian perspective, especially on short term phenomena, far more than a lot of the more dogmatic Marxists would like to think; however, in the real world a lot of the solutions offered by "Keynesians" are weak at best and futile at worst - the foundation we get from Marx proves so. Thus I'd suggest you also read Keynes for himself after reading Marx for himself, and you will see where the limitations lie for the former.

[KARL_MARX]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/superb-reading-material-t132353/index.html

[cyu]

It seems to me that the argument that Marxism has been 'discredited' and that it's not taught or taken seriously in economics departments is quite a convincing one for some people who first encounter the debate.


The fact is, every "school" of economics has been "discredited" by every other school. Each school believes their own world view of the economy is the one true world view and all the other ones are false world views.

...it's rather like religion, really.

[CartCollector]

...it's rather like religion, really.
Does that make gift economists the atheists of economics?

[KurtFF8]

The fact is, every "school" of economics has been "discredited" by every other school. Each school believes their own world view of the economy is the one true world view and all the other ones are false world views.

...it's rather like religion, really.

Exactly. Revolutionary leftists can read an endless amount of books that validate our worldview in opposition to NeoLiberalism or "Mainstream economics" And it's true that Marxists tend to underline the class interest in economic theories.

That said, Ernest Mandel had some interesting things to say on the subject:


Capital[/I] on the Labor Theory of Value"]No part of Marx's theory has been more assaulted in the academic world during the last seventy-five years than his theory of value. His bourgeois critics show a sharp class instinct here, for this theory is indeed the corner-stone of the whole system. But no contemporary intellectual endevour has been so obviously based upon a basic misunderstanding as the repeated attacks on the Marxist labour theory of value
(Bold added by myself)

So what is happening here is what Marcel van der Linden would call the political cores of these theoretical arguments clashing with each other (I highly recommend reading the last chapter of van der Linden's "Western Marxism and the Soviet Union titled "Meta-theoretical Note" which can be applied to the first quote I posted)

Also, to return to Mandel, (and something that may be a bit more of interest to the OP) he wrote an excellent article in opposition to the marginal theory of value here http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/works/marxist-economic-theory/marginalists.htm And while that of course isn't "book length" it's certainly worth checking out.