Where should I start with Economics?

[Questionable]

Obviously I've read quite a few economic works already, but I want to re-approach it from a structured direction that makes sense.

I guess Marx would be the first choice for most people, but I feel like he builds upon many Classical economists, so part of me feels like I should start with people like Say and Ricardo before I even touch Marx. Then again, I don't want to fall into the trap of studying archaic economics that no longer have any relevancy and end up thinking they do because of my ignorance.

Is there some kind of study guide for grasping the vast field of Economics, or should I just take each person as I please?

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I guess it depends on what your current understanding of economics is. I would read contemporary works on Marxist economics first (David Harvey's "The Limits to Capital," Chris Harman's "Zombie Capitalism," and Michael Heinrich's "Introduction to the Three Volumes of Marx's Capital" especially) before delving into classical political economy. But if you're already pretty familiar with that, I'd start with Adam Smith for sure, then Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes, Friederich Hayek, and Milton Friedman for non-Marxist economists.

[Ostrinski]

Ernest Mandel's An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory is great for a beginner at Marxian political economy as well as for anyone who wants to refresh themselves.

Richard Wolff's Economics: Marxian vs. Neoclassical does a good job of outlining the differences and counterpositions of each of the two approaches toward each other.

[The Jay]

Along with Ostrinski's recommendation of Economics: Marxian vs. Neoclassical I would suggest the updated version called Contending Economic Theories (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Contending-Economic-Theories/Richard-D-Wolff/e/9780262517836), also by Rick Wolff.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you really want to be very structured, I'd start with Smith, Ricardo and Marx, as the latter builds on some of the stuff the former two theorise.

Check out the FAQ thread for some basic ideas on marxian and non-marxian economics, but beyond that just read, read, read, and if you've got any questions post here, as you want to be able to apply what you've learned in discussions too, that's quite important for your economic understanding/intuition.

[Clarion]

I'd start with an undergraduate level overview textbook, one of the big door-stoppers. Too many lefties jump into Marx and others while their grasp of the fundamentals is just too shaky and make sloppy errors as a result.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'd start with an undergraduate level overview textbook, one of the big door-stoppers. Too many lefties jump into Marx and others while their grasp of the fundamentals is just too shaky and make sloppy errors as a result.
I really disagree with this. Mainstream economics courses present a conception of economics divorced completely from politics -- and reality, even. They can be useful to the extent that they teach basic economic terminology, but I don't recommend taking an economics course unless you can find a Marxist (or even heterodox) economics professor.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'd start with an undergraduate level overview textbook, one of the big door-stoppers. Too many lefties jump into Marx and others while their grasp of the fundamentals is just too shaky and make sloppy errors as a result.

I'd argue it's the opposite.

If your training in economics, at the most basic level, starts with an orthodox (i.e. mainstream or neo-classical, currently) understanding of the economy and how it functions, then you'll be less likely to grasp the complicated theoretical formulations that underpin the Marxian understanding of political economy as a broader subject.

Moreover, those who train in orthodox economics tend to dismiss the broader-brush understanding that Marxists have, instead getting ground down by maths and complicated models based on crazy assumptions.

To the OP: I STRONGLY suggest you do NOT start your economics education by reading an undergraduate level textbook. Firstly, it'll be so confusing and complicated I guarantee you'll give up within a week. Secondly, a load of it is such bollocks it doesn't really help you to understand how the economy ACTUALLY works. Thirdly, and most importantly, if you want to understand Marxian political economy, then read Marx and, if you do want a broader education that includes a non-Marxian perspective, then at least choose to read the classical economists - Adam Smith, David Ricardo - who formulated their views on the economy from a similar viewpoint to Marx; understanding the (or rather a, theory of value) and that surplus and accumulation are inherently unique characteristics to capitalism.

Seriously, do not punish yourself by studying mainstream economics. Not to start with, anyway!

[Lord Hargreaves]

If I can make a follow up request: does anyone have a reading recommendation on anarchist economics? (i.e. something not directly Marxist) I'm interested in finding out about other radical perspectives.

[Lord Hargreaves]

To the OP: I STRONGLY suggest you do NOT start your economics education by reading an undergraduate level textbook. Firstly, it'll be so confusing and complicated I guarantee you'll give up within a week. Secondly, a load of it is such bollocks it doesn't really help you to understand how the economy ACTUALLY works. Thirdly, and most importantly, if you want to understand Marxian political economy, then read Marx and, if you do want a broader education that includes a non-Marxian perspective, then at least choose to read the classical economists - Adam Smith, David Ricardo - who formulated their views on the economy from a similar viewpoint to Marx; understanding the (or rather a, theory of value) and that surplus and accumulation are inherently unique characteristics to capitalism.

Seriously, do not punish yourself by studying mainstream economics. Not to start with, anyway!

Reading Capital directly is distinctly more difficult than starting by flipping through an undergraduate textbook. Remember - many of us come to Marx and socialism from a humanities background, such that our understanding of economics is starting at absolute zero. You can use a textbook to try and understand the basic economic concepts and definitions, without necessarily being taken in by the explanations given.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Reading Capital directly is distinctly more difficult than starting by flipping through an undergraduate textbook. Remember - many of us come to Marx and socialism from a humanities background, such that our understanding of economics is starting at absolute zero. You can use a textbook to try and understand the basic economic concepts and definitions, without necessarily being taken in by the explanations given.

I wasn't suggesting reading capital to start with, that would be madness.

But I would ingratiate myself with Marxian economics, which can be picked up from various little bits as opposed to reading huge texts.

I've been through the process myself and feel it was greatly beneficial; reading Marxian economic and political texts first enabled me to critique the mainstream economics I am now learning later on.

[Let's Get Free]

I would just get one of the thousands of books out there that gives a basic rundown on Capital.

[ComradeRed]

Obviously I've read quite a few economic works already, but I want to re-approach it from a structured direction that makes sense. A good approach would be to study, at the very least, David Ricardo before Marx.

The ideal approach would be to study each text Marx cites, which would be quite an undertakng!


I'd start with an undergraduate level overview textbook, one of the big door-stoppers. Too many lefties jump into Marx and others while their grasp of the fundamentals is just too shaky and make sloppy errors as a result. This isn't quite true: undergraduate economics is bunk!

The literature on this is quite extensive, for a few books try Steve Keen's Debunking Economics or Rod Hill and Anthony Myatt's Economic Anti-Textbook.

Study vulgar economics before Marx...you may as well study Hegel or tea leaf reading first :lol:

[Pawn Power]

The best economic class I ever had was a wage job.

[The Jay]

Some economics professors know what assumptions they make for their systems to work and admit it openly. Others act like those assumptions are natural and say things like, "communism is when the government owns and decides everything". On the whole, it would probably be better educationally if colleges had economics professors go through the 'founding documents' like Smith's, Ricardo's, Keynes's, ect with a lot of math classes, having classes that bridge the two in the fourth semester or so. Even if Marx were excluded that would be much more 'comprehensive' than what is taught in undergrad econ.

At least that would provide a decent lead-in to all the themes that Marx hits on and reading him would not be so much of a jump that it is for most.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Some economics professors know what assumptions they make for their systems to work and admit it openly. Others act like those assumptions are natural and say things like, "communism is when the government owns and decides everything". On the whole, it would probably be better educationally if colleges had economics professors go through the 'founding documents' like Smith's, Ricardo's, Keynes's, ect with a lot of math classes, having classes that bridge the two in the fourth semester or so. Even if Marx were excluded that would be much more 'comprehensive' than what is taught in undergrad econ.

At least that would provide a decent lead-in to all the themes that Marx hits on and reading him would not be so much of a jump that it is for most.

I don't know about teh USA (though i'm assuming academia is generally globally not dissimilar in the UK and US), but here in the UK , i've been told by one of the last lecturers (maybe even THE last one) to teach non-orthodox economics at my uni that into the 80s and 90s there was a thriving heterdox teaching scene, but that they were pretty much pushed out by the orthodox economists over the past 10-20 years I think.

Sounds about right. It's just a shame, I think any of the students in our lectures can tell that the homogeneity of ideas has led to economics suffering - our economics department is dreadful despite the university as a whole being one of the top 10. It's so obvious it's just almost sad that the economists continue to drudge out their pre-2008, pro-market rubbish.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

Along with Ostrinski's recommendation of Economics: Marxian vs. Neoclassical I would suggest the updated version called Contending Economic Theories (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Contending-Economic-Theories/Richard-D-Wolff/e/9780262517836), also by Rick Wolff.

I have to second (third?) this recommendation. The original (Marxian vs. Neoclassical) is a classic Marxian economic textbook that will also give you a good grasp of neoclassical theory, and the updated version (Contending Economic Theories) will give you a grasp of Keynesian theory as well. It also covers the history of all three theories and their logical foundations.

I strongly recommend you interface with this book before dipping into the primary sources. It is far clearer than anything from the 19th century.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Someone introduced me to Contending Economic Theories today, by coincidence. Looks a top book.

[cyu]

Depends what you believe the role of economics is. In theory, it should be about how best to provide for the people in a population. Is that what economists do in practice?

In theory, the study of theology should be about how best to run a theocracy. But for atheists, the mixture of theological study and politics is just stupid. Would atheists study the "founding fathers" of theology as a basis of how politics should be run?

Similarly, if modern mainstream economists function like part of the theocracy, it doesn't really matter who they claim are the dispensers of truth and wisdom.

Interestingly enough, I first got into what I consider "non-theological" economics while reading about archeology. There, the archeologist was explaining the use of gold as money in ancient civilizations. What surprised me most was the explanation that gold had no "intrinsic value" - for a kid that was brought up on role-playing games and video games where it's all about chasing gold, this came as a bit of a shock.

So if gold has no intrinsic value, it got me into thinking why gold was considered valuable at all. I started getting into the development of banking, and the role early goldsmiths played in the development of money. I started looking into things like why paintings like the Mona Lisa were considered so incredibly valuable that they were considered "priceless" - as well as stuff like the tulip bulb mania that nearly crashed an economy.

Anyway, the bottom line is don't take anything they "teach" you for granted. It could very well just be part of the indoctrination they themselves received.

[Questionable]

I'd argue it's the opposite.

If your training in economics, at the most basic level, starts with an orthodox (i.e. mainstream or neo-classical, currently) understanding of the economy and how it functions, then you'll be less likely to grasp the complicated theoretical formulations that underpin the Marxian understanding of political economy as a broader subject.

Moreover, those who train in orthodox economics tend to dismiss the broader-brush understanding that Marxists have, instead getting ground down by maths and complicated models based on crazy assumptions.

To the OP: I STRONGLY suggest you do NOT start your economics education by reading an undergraduate level textbook. Firstly, it'll be so confusing and complicated I guarantee you'll give up within a week. Secondly, a load of it is such bollocks it doesn't really help you to understand how the economy ACTUALLY works. Thirdly, and most importantly, if you want to understand Marxian political economy, then read Marx and, if you do want a broader education that includes a non-Marxian perspective, then at least choose to read the classical economists - Adam Smith, David Ricardo - who formulated their views on the economy from a similar viewpoint to Marx; understanding the (or rather a, theory of value) and that surplus and accumulation are inherently unique characteristics to capitalism.

Seriously, do not punish yourself by studying mainstream economics. Not to start with, anyway!

I gotta say, you fucking nailed it here.

I'm currently enrolled in an Economics 101 class at my college and if it didn'th ave the name "Economics" on the textbook I'd barely be able to tell it any different from a typical math class. All we've been doing is learning about things like the Production Possibility Curve and all these other microeconomic devices that only work in extreme circumstances ("Yes, this will tell you how much an item costs...if all these things that hardly ever happen happen!"). Most of the models we've been taught are based on the assumption that supply=demand, which as we know is a rarity.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but I've seriously learned more about economics from reading Marx by myself than I have this college class.

[The Jay]

I can vouch for that crap. From self-study I learned basically all I know. I kinda interrupt class by always making the proff frame it in terms of their ideological stance explicitly instead of acting as though it is true.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I gotta say, you fucking nailed it here.

I'm currently enrolled in an Economics 101 class at my college and if it didn'th ave the name "Economics" on the textbook I'd barely be able to tell it any different from a typical math class. All we've been doing is learning about things like the Production Possibility Curve and all these other microeconomic devices that only work in extreme circumstances ("Yes, this will tell you how much an item costs...if all these things that hardly ever happen happen!"). Most of the models we've been taught are based on the assumption that supply=demand, which as we know is a rarity.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but I've seriously learned more about economics from reading Marx by myself than I have this college class.

yeah a lot of it is bullshit, especially the early micro stuff (production possibility frontier and so on...I dunno if you've done utility curves yet?). I even found second year micro quite useless really.

I would pay more attention to the macro stuff, and i'd take 2nd/3rd year macro modules, because

a) some of the stuff makes sense in a fairly non-partisan way (like when they start to introduce technology as an endogenous variable, and the stuff on interest rates and inflation is very technical and you really want to be able to engage this stuff)

b) the macro stuff overlaps with some more orthodox Keynesianism, which gives you a headstart when you come to look at non-mainstream stuff which includes post-Keynesianism and leads onto more radical stuff. Being able to differentiate the terminology used in the marxist literature (i.e. C - M - C, or the equations for profit/accumulation) and those in the orthodox literature (i.e knowing instantly what the basic 'Y = C + I + G' equation in the IS section of the IS-LM model means and is affected by, so that you can move onto more advanced versions such as, for example:

Y = C (Y-T) + I (Y, i) + G + NX (Y, Y*, [1+i]/[1+i*]E^e)

It looks batshit insane but you need to understand that sort of stuff to understand where the capitalist economists are coming from. I'd ignore all that utility stuff and focus on understanding IS-LM and their theories on inflation/employment and interest rates/exchange rates, that should be enough, and will give you plenty of time alongside that to study Marx in your own time!

[Red Economist]

Obviously I've read quite a few economic works already, but I want to re-approach it from a structured direction that makes sense.

I guess Marx would be the first choice for most people, but I feel like he builds upon many Classical economists, so part of me feels like I should start with people like Say and Ricardo before I even touch Marx. Then again, I don't want to fall into the trap of studying archaic economics that no longer have any relevancy and end up thinking they do because of my ignorance.

Is there some kind of study guide for grasping the vast field of Economics, or should I just take each person as I please?

I studied economics for two years at A-level and for one year university. However, I have not really looked deep in to Marxist economics. My advice is to get a broad overview of the whole subject by reading up the history of economic theory.

I haven't bought this book, but would suggest something like the one below; if it's good, you'll be able to explore any area of economics pretty comfortably on your own, with one foot in a history class and the other in an economics class, so you know where, how and why economics has changed over time because of politics and society. this more historical and somewhat reletavistic approach makes it much harder, but also keep the dogmatism of easy anzwers at bay.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Evolving-History-Economic-Thought/dp/0691148422/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1359800614&sr=8-7

This might be harder said than done, because today economics is now so heavily dominated by the "neoclassical school of economics" and prevents expression of dissenting opinions (Heterodox economics) . This has not simply narrowed the number of ideas, but significantly cut down the resources on certain subjects such as economic history, because knowing what happened rather than doing theory leads to independent conclusions which may not be politically convienent to the establishment. :D

I was lucky because there were alot of second hand bookshops in my area where I found an old book from the 70's which did alot of justice to each thinker: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Marx, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, J.M. Keynes and a few modern ones.

I'd say this because:

a) in terms of economics, Marx was not really an originial thinker, but "probably" (as, like most people, I find Capital is a huge book which I haven't got round to reading it) deepened the analyisis of the early socialists who used ricardo's labour theory of value to challange the basis of private property.

b) It helps to know what the 'other side' is arguing as well as I've found it makes for much more effective in breaking down opposing arguments. It also gives you a chance to take a look at your own views and understand why you think the things you do better.

c) the similiarites between classical economics and marxist economics says alot about the similarities between capitalism and communism. Knowing this is a pretty good way of not ending dogmatically marxist and helps avoid the opposite of the neo-liberals "the market is always right" with the communist "the plan is always right", both of which history show if pursued uncompromisingly end in ruin.

when you said about not wanting to "fall into the trap of studying archaic economics that no longer have any relevancy", actually most of the old economists like Smith, Ricardo etc are still very relevant. They don't get much coverage because in the 19th century economists made a semi-conscious effort to remove the labour theory of value from economics in order to eliminate socialist, particuarly marxist, thought. They are still relevant because they established the founding principles of economic thought from which all others are essentially derived even if somewhat remotely; but the only contemporary school of economics that uses classical economists heavily is Marxism.
For the record, Malthus, is still VERY relevant in a more dilluted form if you are dealing with the economics of environmental problems. (see Neo-Malthusianism).

The only thing I'd say to watch out for is Neo-liberalism. It isen't a form of economics, but actually a political doctorine based on advocating markets on the desireability of liberty. they came essentially out of no where in terms of economic theory. this is important because no matter how much it doesn't work it's proponents will always turn round and say it is desireable. :lol:

[Prof. Oblivion]

I gotta say, you fucking nailed it here.

I'm currently enrolled in an Economics 101 class at my college and if it didn'th ave the name "Economics" on the textbook I'd barely be able to tell it any different from a typical math class. All we've been doing is learning about things like the Production Possibility Curve and all these other microeconomic devices that only work in extreme circumstances ("Yes, this will tell you how much an item costs...if all these things that hardly ever happen happen!"). Most of the models we've been taught are based on the assumption that supply=demand, which as we know is a rarity.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but I've seriously learned more about economics from reading Marx by myself than I have this college class.

Beginning economics courses are pretty terrible. Check out Bukharin's Economic Theory of the Leisure Class if you want a pretty strong critique of what you're learning.


yeah a lot of it is bullshit, especially the early micro stuff (production possibility frontier and so on...I dunno if you've done utility curves yet?). I even found second year micro quite useless really.

I would pay more attention to the macro stuff, and i'd take 2nd/3rd year macro modules, because

a) some of the stuff makes sense in a fairly non-partisan way (like when they start to introduce technology as an endogenous variable, and the stuff on interest rates and inflation is very technical and you really want to be able to engage this stuff)

b) the macro stuff overlaps with some more orthodox Keynesianism, which gives you a headstart when you come to look at non-mainstream stuff which includes post-Keynesianism and leads onto more radical stuff. Being able to differentiate the terminology used in the marxist literature (i.e. C - M - C, or the equations for profit/accumulation) and those in the orthodox literature (i.e knowing instantly what the basic 'Y = C + I + G' equation in the IS section of the IS-LM model means and is affected by, so that you can move onto more advanced versions such as, for example:

Y = C (Y-T) + I (Y, i) + G + NX (Y, Y*, [1+i]/[1+i*]E^e)

It looks batshit insane but you need to understand that sort of stuff to understand where the capitalist economists are coming from. I'd ignore all that utility stuff and focus on understanding IS-LM and their theories on inflation/employment and interest rates/exchange rates, that should be enough, and will give you plenty of time alongside that to study Marx in your own time!

Macro is pretty good because it helps explain government policy, though the courses I took were never sufficient in their explanation. I think I only took a basic macro course, though.

My "Money & Banking" course was probably the best in terms of explaining US debt securities, the Fed and how money is created, the history of banks, etc. These are really the only useful topics in economics. Everything else that's interesting is covered usually in finance classes (corporate finance, investment banking, investment management, etc.). You're not going to learn the ideology of business owners and banks until you take these courses; also, you'll learn how it directly contradicts your economics courses. :)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't find these things that useful as financial instruments should be seen merely as commodities for exchange on the market system, OR as investments used as a tool by rentiers.

I mean, it does help to have an understanding of these things when they invariably fuck up and cause crises, but tbh I find these things are covered more than adequately (in terms of understanding their basic relationships to the 'real' economy) by interest rate and exchange rate theories.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I don't find these things that useful as financial instruments should be seen merely as commodities for exchange on the market system, OR as investments used as a tool by rentiers.

I mean, it does help to have an understanding of these things when they invariably fuck up and cause crises, but tbh I find these things are covered more than adequately (in terms of understanding their basic relationships to the 'real' economy) by interest rate and exchange rate theories.

I hear too many leftists make vague "critiques" of capitalism based on a priori statements and ideological vagaries to agree with you. I think nearly everyone on this board could benefit from an understanding of the money-creation-process, bond yields, the role of ibanks and PE shops, etc. I mean we had a thread a few weeks ago where a poster linked to an article that talked about "the amount of leverage" and we saw how that conversation went.

[thethinveil]

I recently watched a talk between Stiglitz (former treasury official under Clinton) and Krugman (same, went on to write for the NYT), each of whom have been critical of the administration for not supporting stimulative spending more and instead supporting bringing down the debt. In the talk, Krugman stated that, Macroecon as a discipline has fallen apart since the crisis and most have been proven wrong. Yet he says many won't admit it to themselves.

As to the question, I would recommend "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang. He is what Marxists called a bourgeois economist because while he doesn't support the free market he is not a market fundamentalist. He covers much of basics without going into the technical details (with a discipline like economics you can do this.)

Richard Wolff I have heard good things about, but I have not read any of his books. You could also check out David Harvey who is geographer who has been teaching Capital for 40 years - his work not necessarily groundbreaking but clear.

[redblood_blackflag]

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design." - F.A. Hayek


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_economic_thought

Maybe this could provide some general direction or starting points in your study.

[thethinveil]

I should also mention the Frontiers in Political Economy Routledge Series which covers economics that includes economists other than the neo-classicists.

And the liberal-progressive-socialist magazine Dollars and Sense puts out college level textbooks covering labor, macro and micro.

I would post links for you but I don't have that ability yet.

[Yuppie Grinder]

An awful lot of people on revleft often misuse the term "political economy". When Marx uses that term he's talking about what we now call classical economics.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

An awful lot of people on revleft often misuse the term "political economy". When Marx uses that term he's talking about what we now call classical economics.

Not quite. That's what it's morphed into, though. But political economy was the study of political structures alongside their economic impacts/causes. It was really a much broader field than the modelled, aiming-to-be-scientific field that we call economics today.

[bhagirathbaria]

Dear Questionable, you need to first clearly decide, whether you'd like to study Karl Marx or not. If you start with Smith or Ricardo, you'll end up wasting a lot of time in studying what is criticized by Marx later on. Its either Marx or the classicals or Keynesians, or the Austrians as the case may be. Thus, you need to start from somewhere rather than surveying through loads of works and ending up baffled. The best would be to study foll. two resources in the beginning:

1). kapitalism101[dot]wordpress[dot]com
- For an introduction to Marxist Economics- Brendan Cooney's blog- This blog is a highly reliable introduction of Marx's Economics for those who have little of no prior knowledge about it. It is composed of [I]Videos on the 'Law of Value' and various other issues in Marxist Economics. Do study them.

2). Marx's Capital by Ben Fine & Alfredo Saad-filho. You must restrict yourself to the first six chapters only. They cover Capital vol. 1 in simple, easy-to-comprehend manner.

After this you can take up Capital Vol. 1 along with a few other complimentary resources- which I'll share on your further request only. The above two sources will help you gather a very reliable and original analysis of Marx's work which is in rapport with Marx's Capital & his other major Economic works. I am quite critical of Harvey's works on Marx's Capital and don't think that they must be referred till you have gathered a basic understanding of Marx's Economic theory.

Later, if you want, I can share with you more advanced & mature works.
-- Warm Regards. :)

[Paul Cockshott]

I guess it depends on what your current understanding of economics is. I would read contemporary works on Marxist economics first (David Harvey's "The Limits to Capital," Chris Harman's "Zombie Capitalism," and Michael Heinrich's "Introduction to the Three Volumes of Marx's Capital" especially) before delving into classical political economy. But if you're already pretty familiar with that, I'd start with Adam Smith for sure, then Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes, Friederich Hayek, and Milton Friedman for non-Marxist economists.

I have grave reservations about including Heinrich, Hayek and Friedman here. Hayek and Friedman as complete reactionary vulgar economists, and Heinrich, because in the view of many Marxist economists, he gives a distorted and hostile account of Marx.
See for example here : http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/michael-heinrich-marxs-law-and-crisis-theory/
for critical comments by a whole group of marxist economists or
http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/paul-cockshott/2013/02/15/new-age-marxism

[cyu]

I have grave reservations about including Heinrich, Hayek and Friedman here. Hayek and Friedman as complete reactionary vulgar economists


Exactly, it would be like reading Philip Morris press releases to learn about the health effects of tobacco :grin: