Modern Marxist thinkers

[Questionable]

I started out learning from Marxism with the oldies. Lenin, Luxemburg, etc - but I'm starting to get a bit burnt out. While some ideals are still relevant, a lot of these works don't have much use for today. It's hard for me to keep interest when I read some 1930s piece about how capitalism is in its death throes and the Soviet Union is about to sweep the world.

What are some modern Marxist thinkers that are interesting? Anybody from the 1990s to today would be interesting to read, just something relating to modern capitalism. Tendency matters little to me.

[Prinskaj]

What are some modern Marxist thinkers that are interesting? Anybody from the 1990s to today would be interesting to read, just something relating to modern capitalism. Tendency matters little to me. David Harvey is properly the best out there. He has written the Enigma of Capital which is a superb book.

[Zanthorus]

Marxist thinkers relating to modern capitalism? There's this one little known thinker from Germany whose ideas are pretty current, I think his name was Karl something? Max? Manx? Minx?...


David Harvey is properly the best out there. He has written the Enigma of Capital which is a superb book.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that he tacitly accepts that Marx's formulation of value theory is logically inconsistent and explicitly rejects Marx's explanation of crisis.

[Igor]

Marxist thinkers relating to modern capitalism? There's this one little known thinker from Germany whose ideas are pretty current, I think his name was Karl something? Max? Manx? Minx?...

karla minx would totally be my drag name

[Q]

Depending on the subject you're interested in, Mike Macnair, Hillel Ticktin, Moshé Machover, Chris Knight and Arthur Bough come to mind.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

As mentioned, David Harvey is good stuff.
If you're looking for the 1990s and onward, Chris Harman also wrote some fantastic books (Zombie Capitalism, The Lost Revolution, and A People's History of the World). He unfortunately passed away 3 years ago.

[aty]

David Harvey should be read with a huge amount of critical thought because he is highly formed by the backlashes of marxism after the seventies.

His crisis theory is basically keynesian.

The new school that is starting to emerge identifies Marxs "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" as what causes crisis in capitalism.
This explanation is revolutionary, Harveys keynesian "the workers are not paid enough blabla" is not revolutionary but reformist.
If you identify the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as the problem with capitalism you have to respond with a revolutionary answer. The system of capitalism is in itself unsustainable and we have to replace it totally.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Lars T. Lih

[Q]

Lars T. Lih

He's strictly not a Marxist thinker, which is why I didn't mention him, but I agree his historical research is highly valuable.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

He's strictly not a Marxist thinker, which is why I didn't mention him, but I agree his historical research is highly valuable.

and that's why I listed him

[Mr. Natural]

Questionable, Good topic. The original Marxist classics are usually difficult, dense, and profound, and secondary sources--scholars who have made Marxism their lifework--can be most helpful.

Unfortunately, Marxist scholarship is in decline due to the triumph of capitalism, and few worthwhile secondary readings are appearing. A most important exception to this is Bertell Ollman's body of work on the materialist dialectic. Ollman definitively shows that Marx gained his understanding of life and society as organic, systemic processes from Hegel's dialectical categories and philosophy of internal relations (world as internally related whole composed of other such wholes) and then turned Hegel's idealism on its head to create his materialist dialectic. Ollman's finished work on this is his Dance of the Dialectic (2003), and current attempts by many "Marxists" to deny the materialist dialectic take the life out of Marxism.

I also find Joel Kovel's Enemy of Nature (2002) to be of considerable value. Kovel is the current head of American ecosocialism, and Enemy investigates the nature of presentday capitalist realities in clear language and conclusively demonstrates the ultimate unworkability and horror of capitalism. Kovel also outlines a grassroots, ecosystemic, ecological revolutionary organizing process that I believe captures the essence of any potentially successful such movement, at least in the West.

Then there is John Bellamy Foster's Marx's Ecology (2000). Foster is the editor of Monthly Review, and this work traces Marx's human and natural ecological materialism to Epicurus as expressed in Marx's doctoral dissertation. Do not doubt Marx's ecological materialism: Marx didn't.

My red-green best.

[Ocean Seal]

You know I know that there are quite a few Marxist thinkers, but are there any Marxist economists?

As for thinkers, Zizek, Parenti, Mattick, and more.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Antonio Negri

[NewLeft]

Has anyone read Samir Amin?

[The Jay]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned Richard D. Wolff. His economic updates every month (starting back up in September) are great monthly reviews. I also enjoy Michael Albert's speeches.

[JPSartre12]

I'd recommend Andrew Glyn. He was a prominent British economics professor and most of his work revolved around Marxist economics, analyzing capitalism, etc, but he passed away a couple years ago. The UK apparently had a secret file about him. I haven't read any of his works yet, but I know his son from a foreign exchange program, and he says that they're good.

[aty]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned Richard D. Wolff. His economic updates every month (starting back up in September) are great monthly reviews.
Also a keynesian.

[The Jay]

Also a keynesian.

If he's talking about what politicians can do to extend the lifespan of Capitalism and temporarily alleviate the burden on people yes. In his opinion Capitalism as a whole should end. Just because he doesn't say, "hur bourgie economics never works" doesn't make him any less of a Marxist. You need to look at what he says in the context he's saying it instead of in a superficial way.

[aty]

If he's talking about what politicians can do to extend the lifespan of Capitalism and temporarily alleviate the burden on people yes. In his opinion Capitalism as a whole should end. Just because he doesn't say, "hur bourgie economics never works" doesn't make him any less of a Marxist. You need to look at what he says in the context he's saying it instead of in a superficial way.
His analysis of capitalism is basically keynesian, just as Harveys. Their analysis implies that reformism can fix capitalism in some way, "give the workers better wages so they can buy the stuff the capitalists want to produce with their capital", and such bullshit.

[Prinskaj]

His analysis of capitalism is basically keynesian, just as Harveys. Their analysis implies that reformism can fix capitalism in some way, "give the workers better wages so they can buy the stuff the capitalists want to produce with their capital", and such bullshit.
"Capitalism will never fall on its own. It will have to be pushed. The accumulation of capital will never cease. It will have to be stopped. The capitalist class will never willingly surrender its power. It will have to be dispossessed." - David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital
Yeah, what a reformist!

[Tim Finnegan]

A lot of the best stuff these days is coming from journal groups rather than any particular "big name" thinkers. Aufheben (http://libcom.org/aufheben), Endnotes (http://libcom.org/tags/endnotes), Riff-Raff (http://libcom.org/tags/riff-raff), Wildcat (http://libcom.org/tags/wildcat-germany), Theorie Communiste (http://libcom.org/library/theorie-communiste) and Troploin (http://libcom.org/tags/troploin) all have some pretty decent stuff. (All but the first two are translated, though, so you have to be prepared for some occasionally stilted language.)

[aty]

"Capitalism will never fall on its own. It will have to be pushed. The accumulation of capital will never cease. It will have to be stopped. The capitalist class will never willingly surrender its power. It will have to be dispossessed." - David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital
Yeah, what a reformist!
Their analys is reformist because it implies that capitalism "could be fixed". What Marx wrote in Das Kapital was much more radical and revolutionary because it describes captialism as impossible for the working class in the long run because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Harveys and Wolffs analys produces reformism. Marx analys produces revolution.

[Anarpest]

I suppose that Paresh Chattopadhyay would probably have some articles about modern capitalism, his work on the Soviet Union is relatively popular on Libcom.

[The Jay]

Harveys and Wolffs analys produces reformism. Marx analys produces revolution.

Yeah, you're full of it. Prove what you say and I'll admit I'm wrong.

[RadioRaheem84]

Harvey and Wolff speak reform in public and on tv, but in their books and lectures they're very anti capitalist.

All leftists do this when interviewed by the mainstream.

Speaking of which BOTH were interviewed by Charlie Rose, who I was baffled was a complete idiot on the subjects of capitalism, socialism and the financial crisis.

[The Jay]

Harvey and Wolff speak reform in public and on tv, but in their books and lectures they're very anti capitalist.

All leftists do this when interviewed by the mainstream.

Speaking of which BOTH were interviewed by Charlie Rose, who I was baffled was a complete idiot on the subjects of capitalism, socialism and the financial crisis.


I've seen a lot of Charlie Rose interviews and yes, he is ignorant of those subjects.

[Lucretia]

Why are people disputing that Harvey is a reformist? He explicitly calls for reforms in his books not as a means to revolution but for the purpose of stabilizing capitalism. See pp. 208, ff. in his New Imperialism, which is available for preview on Google Books, and tell me what you think.

Nobody is disputing that Harvey is a Marxist and has made contributions to Marxist thought. What I see being mentioned here is that Harvey, in addition to making contributions to Marxist thought, has a huge theoretical blind spot (re: tendency for the rate of profit to fall) which facilitates his embrace of a functionally liberal politics. It is therefore important to read him with even more care than you would any other Marxist author.

[RadioRaheem84]

Maybe they're Dem Socs?

[Zanthorus]

Harvey and Wolff speak reform in public and on tv, but in their books and lectures they're very anti capitalist.

All leftists do this when interviewed by the mainstream.

Or it could be that all the 'leftists' you are reading interviews with are spineless cretins.

"R.: And of union to what end?
Dr. M.: The economical emancipation of the working class by the conquest of political power. The use of that political power to the attainment of social ends."

"And is this massive-headed, generous-featured, courtly, kindly man of 60, with the bushy masses of long revelling gray hair, Karl Marx? His dialogue reminded me of that of Socrates -- so free, so sweeping, so creative, so incisive, so genuine -- with its sardonic touches, its gleams of humor, and its sportive merriment. He spoke of the political forces and popular movements of the various countries of Europe -- the vast current of the spirit of Russia, the motions of the German mind, the action of France, the immobility of England. He spoke hopefully of Russia, philosophically of Germany, cheerfully of France, and sombrely of England -- referring contemptuously to the "atomistic reforms" over which the Liberals of the British Parliament spend their time."

[aty]

Harvey and Wolff speak reform in public and on tv, but in their books and lectures they're very anti capitalist.

All leftists do this when interviewed by the mainstream.


It does not matter if he is "anti-capitalist". What matters if he has a revolutionary theory of capitalism, he does not.

Here you have a great debunking of Harveys crisis theory: http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-enigmaticism-of-the-enigmatic-or-more-on-david-harvey/

For the purpose of this essay what is most important is the Okishio Theorem which argued that Marx’s theory of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF) was invalid. Okishio argued that it was impossible for labor-saving innovations to make the rate of profit fall as Marx had argued it would. The inability of Marxists to find a way to refute the Okishio Theorem led many to abandon Marx’s theory of crisis, and to try to find some way to prove the inevitability of crisis using other aspects of Marx’s analysis of Capital. It was a time for vague work-arounds and soft answers. For Harvey it meant taking focus away from the rate of profit and instead focussing on the growth of capital itself, searching for a multitude of different barriers that could check this growth. But since these 70′s debates, since Harvey’s Limits to Capital, there has been a rising tide of theorists who have come to question the theoretical assumptions behind the Okishio Theorem and the transformation problem, arguing that Marx’s value theory is consistent and complete, not in need of full-scale revisions. The presence of these new challenges, these new defenses of value theory, demand that we reinvestigate the theories of the past, theories that were forged in an era of theoretical defeat.