Contemporary Marxist Economics

[$lim_$weezy]

I was wondering if anyone has a good idea of contemporary developments of Marxian economics? By this I mean things after works like "Capital", "Finance Capital", "Imperialism", etc. Are any of the various "schools" worth checking out? Any works I should read to be up-to-date?

I picked up John Bell's "Capitalism and the Dialectic", which is about the Uno-Sekine approach, whatever that is.

Anybody?

[cyu]

Yep, there's been quite a lot of development actually. Here's a small collection of some of the diversity of thought since then - thankfully completely free and online too:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-f139/index.html

;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed, the likes of Kliman, Wolff, Resnick et all have been developing and re-interpreting Marxism, updated for today.

I'm currently ploughing through Wolff and Resnick's 'Contemporary Economic Theories', which provides an explanation and analysis of neo-classical, Keynesian (the heterodox aspects) and Marxian economics'. It's really a terrific book and the Marxian section is large and a very good introduction to Marxism 'for today'.

[subcp]

Post-war Marxist economic theory:

Jacques Camatte, Capital and Community (Geimenwesen- poorly translated to 'community' in English):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/index.htm

Contemporary economic theories (the last 10-20 years to today) from groups like Internationalist Perspective, communisation publications (Theorie Communiste, Riff-Raff, Endnotes, etc.) focus on similar topics of the works of Marx which were published very late (Grundrisse, Results of the Immediate Process of Production), the formal to the real domination of capital and the value-form. Very interesting works.

Kliman's simple style of documenting phenomenon (like the falling rate of profit) is very good, I second the recommendation of his work. His politics aren't terrible but they're the weakest part of his work (from what I've read so far).

[$lim_$weezy]

Ah thanks everyone.

I'll look through what's been posted. I read Wolff and Resnick's "Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical" but thought it was extremely repetitive, dry, and not very insightful. However, I realize it was an introductory book, and will look into their other work. Is "Knowledge and Class" worth reading, because I have easy access to a copy of it?

I've been meaning to read Kliman's "Reclaiming Marx's Capital", so I'll probably get around to that pretty soon.

Thanks cyu, exactly what I was looking for :rolleyes:

[The Jay]

Indeed, the likes of Kliman, Wolff, Resnick et all have been developing and re-interpreting Marxism, updated for today.

I'm currently ploughing through Wolff and Resnick's 'Contemporary Economic Theories', which provides an explanation and analysis of neo-classical, Keynesian (the heterodox aspects) and Marxian economics'. It's really a terrific book and the Marxian section is large and a very good introduction to Marxism 'for today'.

I'm reading that too. When I showed it to my economics professor he said that it was explaining things on an intermediate college level and he's straight neo-liberal. If he gives it that much credence then I would assume that it is as legitimate as I thought it was.

[$lim_$weezy]

Okay so I found myself enjoying Rubin's "Essays on Marx's Theory of Value", and Sohn-Rethel's "Intellectual and Manual Labour". I think this is the so-called "value-form school"? Is there much worth reading in this vein?

[subcp]

Yes. I think some of the value-form tendencies make excellent arguments against the idea of a transitional society (as opposed to a transitional period), the idea that the command economy is a gain of the working-class, any idea related to 'labor notes', etc.

[$lim_$weezy]

Huh, do you have a particular work to recommend? I haven't found anything explicit about that in those two works I listed. My interest is piqued.

[subcp]

I mean the conclusions from some of the value-form theories, when applied to practical ideas or historical events (like the existence of the RSFSR/USSR), can explain why capitalism never stopped existing in Russia, or why contemporary theories of 'labor notes' replacing money (Parecon) are still capitalism.

I'll try and get some more examples later, but this booklet is more explicit in that regard (on socially necessary labor time etc.), pre-dates the post-war value-form debates:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm

[$lim_$weezy]

Okay so I found the Uno-Sekine approach pretty bland, at least from John Bell's book.

I'm reading "Reclaiming Marx's 'Capital'" by Andrew Kliman, which has really brought me up to date (I hope) on some of the current issues in Marxian economics. Does anyone have opinions on the TSSI and it's competitors?

Is there a good, lengthy response to Kliman's book and the TSSI by neo-Ricardians or other simultaneists?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I am pretty sold on the TSSI, since Kliman lays out its tenets in a super logical, downright analytical way. Also, because none of the 'simultaneists' have come out of the woodwork to attack it, other than David Laibman. I would recommend reading Kliman's book on the crisis too, The Failure of Capitalist Production, to show how the TSSI can be applied successfully to empirical research.

Kliman gave me a list of articles to read regarding the value theory controversy, and I've been meaning to compile them into a course for Revleft. PM me if you want the articles, but I warn you that most of them are hard to find and are very, very dense.

[$lim_$weezy]

I'm at university so I should be able to find the articles, but the names of them would indeed be very helpful at least. I can handle density, usually... I'm brushing up on my math skills haha.

A few questions about the TSSI, to anyone who thinks they can answer:

What is the significance of truncating the number of production periods to just two? Simple reproduction could continue, right? Laibman shows a divergence of the value rates of profit for the three typical transformation-problem sectors when the process is extended. Is this a problem for the TSSI?

Laibman alleges that an infinite number of sets of prices exists given the TSSI, for a single reproduction schema, "with its given inputs, outputs, techniques, and flows of labour". Is this a problem for the TSSI?

Finally, a number of responses are in order, from TSSI and simultaneists alike (I'm working on reading both "The New Value Controversy" and "Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics", so I haven't gotten to everything yet...). Does anyone know of any good refutations of the TSSI, if such a thing exists? Or good refutations of the TSSI's allegations against the simultaneists? For them, is value really not determined by labor time at all? Are there Marxist responses to this?

EDIT: The more I read, the more confused I am! What the hell is even the current state of the debate?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

$lim, check your PMs

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

$lim, check your PMs

Please leave this sort of post out of the forum. If you want Slim to check their PMs, try leaving them a visitor message. This is a forum for the discussion of Economics, let's keep it that way and be economical with our off-topic stuff, eh? ;)