Economics - Recomended Reading

[crippled sloth]

Let me preface this by saying that all the evidence I have read indicates that the economies of (at least the early) USSR and red china were far more effective than those of capitalist countries at a similar stage of development at the time of revolution.

Mainstream economics disagrees for obvious reasons - though the factual comparisons made (East vs West germany, North vs South Korea, USA vs USSR) are such ridiculous violations of the ceteris paribus principle it beggars belief.

I am interested in understanding in detail the different ways these economies function and how it effects efficiency, innovation, output, distribution etc. I am looking for objective, heavily evidence based texts, which are not appologetics for some abstract and partisan theory - perhaps a pipe dream.

I am also very interested in the different ways of structuring a planned economy and hopw they compare.

It is my personal theory that libertarian communist economies will be more effective (especially in terms of innovation) for the reasons karl popper argued the scientific communities in democratic states were more effective than those of totalitarian states. However the only real world example of this that I am aware of is the communes in catalonia during the spanish civil war - and as far as i can tell, information about this, or a decent ceteris paribus comparison would be very difficult to come by.

[ComradeRed]

How mathematical do you want to get? Because I can think of scores of technical books that you may be interested in; unless you want something sans math, then you are shit out of luck.

[crippled sloth]

Well, I'm a uni first year studying philosophy, politics and economics, so about that sort of level. Cheers.

[Zeruzo]

i'd say:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...blems/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm)
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html#TALK
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html#WRITTEN
http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/WPP65.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/C2/C2.TC.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/ER97.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/MT98.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TR99.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/IMP16.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/CM16.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/ISS16.html

Dunno, if thats of a high-enough level, and you prolly already read Das Kapital, but i added it anyway...

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by crippled [email protected] 11, 2006 06:44 am
Well, I'm a uni first year studying philosophy, politics and economics, so about that sort of level. Cheers.
I'm assuming you are like me and have read all ready what Zesuro has suggested, and interested in further developping theoretical aspects of (Marxist) economics.

Here are some links which may prove to be useful in what you are looking for. Some of this is not expressly leftist, rather it tries to explain some of what's going on in a method Marx would've been proud of. It's a holistic approach to studying the social sciences.

You may want to look into some of the following, this is a survey of the holistic approaches:

From the Santa Fe Institute - an institute that emphasizes holistic approaches to investigating natural and social phenomena.
Economic and Social Interactions Research (http://www.santafe.edu/research/economicSocial.php)
Network Dynamics (http://www.santafe.edu/research/networkDynamics.php)
Working Papers (http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/working-papers.php)

Institute of Complex Systems (http://www.complexsystems.org/)

Now for specific Economic books:

Production of Commodities by means of Commodities, by Piero Sraffa. This is a recommended read for everyone; it's basically a mathematical formalism of Ricardian economics.

Works by Michał Kalecki

The economy as an evolving complex system : the proceedings of the Evolutionary Paths of the Global Economy Workshop, held September, 1987 in Santa Fe, New Mexico - a monograph.

Evolutionary dynamics : exploring the interplay of selection, accident, neutrality, and function - another monograph.

Nonlinear dynamics, mathematical biology, and social science, by Epstein, Joshua M.

I have a feeling this is something a little beyond first year uni level...

[Tekun]

Damn, Im gonna have to check these out...

It seems that you're pretty knowledgeable about marxian economics, so if I may ComRed, are u a student of econ or just really knowledgeable on the subject?
I say this because Im studying economics at the uni, and Im thinking of picking up a minor in marxist studies, and I will prolly need some help or guidance as I go further in my studies

[ComradeRed]

Don't bother studying economics at a university (unless you are at New School or UMass Amherst or Cambridge); it's all vulgar economics otherwise.

I'm really knowledgeable on economics, I've been studying it carefully for a good long while now. I'm probably more familiar with non-orthodox ("heterodox") economics that require a great deal of mathematical rigor than that which you'd learn as an undergrad at uni.

Again, don't study economics at university; study it on your own time.

[Son of a Strummer]

Crippled Sloth,

Your request seems to encompass demands for well-documented empirically based economic history and analysis of the SU, a clear non-partisan explanation of the theories that the SU's political-economic institutions embodied (however imperfectly), and abstract theoretical models of central planning.

It is certainly not an easy task to fulfill your request, and your thirst is not likely to be satiated by a single book. However I will begin by suggesting the one book which to my mind comes closest to fulfilling your request.

It is a recent book by Canadian political economist Robert C. Allen called "Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution."

It was a co-winner of the 2005 Ranki Prize awarded by The Economic History Association for outstanding books pertaining to European economic history.

In terms of its historical scope it begins with analysis of the Soviet economy from its beginnings through to its dissolution using a wide array of empirical data and a methodology of situating these indicators in a world historical perspective. The book also encompasses the theoretical underpinnings of Soviet politico-economic institutions and includes an appendix explicating a simulation model of the Soviet Economy.

Here is a quote and a link to a sample chapter...


" Fourth, the Soviet Union grew rapidly in comparison to the other countries of the world. This stands out for the 1928-70 period, when the planning system was working well and also obtains--less dramatically--when comparisons are made over the whole 1928-89 period.

Figure 1.1 shows the relevant facts. The vertical axis shows the growth rate (the factor by which GDP per head grew from 1928 to 1970), and the horizontal axis shows 1928 income. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) points lie to the right of the graph in view of their higher 1928 incomes.3 There is also a downward trend in the OECD points characteristic of income convergence (the poorer OECD countries in 1928 had a higher income growth factor). The trend line is the OECD "catch-up regression." The non-OECD points are clustered in the lower left of the graph. These countries had low incomes in 1928 and low growth rates to 1970, so they failed to catch up with the leaders.

The Soviet Union (with a 1928 income of $1370 and a growth factor of 4.1) was the non-OECD country that did the best in Figure 1.1. Its growth factor was also higher than that of all OECD countries except Japan. Soviet performance exceeded the OECD catch-up regression, which is a more stringent standard since its value is higher for poor countries than for rich. Figure 1.1 shows that the USSR performed exceptionally well over the 1928-70 period if it is classified as a less developed country and also outperforms the average OECD country even allowing for catch-up."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7611.html

I honestly think that the above may be the best place to start, if only because it is anchored to the performance of an economy that tried to employ a variant of central planning in real world conditions.

For other resources including some more oriented to abstract models of central planning try:

Maurice Dobb- "Soviet Economic Development Since 1917" (1948) and "Socialist Planning: Some problems" (1970)

Michael Kalecki- Collected Works of Michal Kalecki - Vol 4. Socialism: Economic Growth and Efficiency (for a decent introductory article bearing on Kalecki's approach to socialist planning see... Jan Toporowsk The Contradictions of Market Socialism, Monthly Review 1995 ... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m113...v46/ai_16842016 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n11_v46/ai_16842016)

Robin Hahnel- Economic Justice and Democracy ...contains a lengthy chapter analysing and critiquing Soviet planning on both theoretical and practical grounds, informed in large part by the work of Kalecki and Leontiev. Notably he does not consider central planning necessarily less efficient in theory than private enterprise market economies, they are both inefficient and inequitable, albeit for different reasons. Instead the main thrust of his critique concerns Soviet and central planning's suppression of economic democracy and self-management.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+November 11, 2006 10:09 pm--> (ComradeRed @ November 11, 2006 10:09 pm)
crippled [email protected] 11, 2006 06:44 am
Well, I'm a uni first year studying philosophy, politics and economics, so about that sort of level. Cheers.
I'm assuming you are like me and have read all ready what Zesuro has suggested, and interested in further developping theoretical aspects of (Marxist) economics. [/b]
Well, i think he was talking about the USSR and China, not Marxist economics in general...

I forgot 1 good book though: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/...land/index.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/hoxha/bland/index.html)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Zeruzo+November 12, 2006 10:17 am--> (Zeruzo @ November 12, 2006 10:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 10:09 pm

crippled [email protected] 11, 2006 06:44 am
Well, I'm a uni first year studying philosophy, politics and economics, so about that sort of level. Cheers.
I'm assuming you are like me and have read all ready what Zesuro has suggested, and interested in further developping theoretical aspects of (Marxist) economics.
Well, i think he was talking about the USSR and China, not Marxist economics in general...

I forgot 1 good book though: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/...land/index.html (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/hoxha/bland/index.html) [/b]
And how does wage labor & capital tie into the economics of the soviet union and china?

[Zeruzo]

Ok, haha, you're right...

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:30 am
Don't bother studying economics at a university (unless you are at New School or UMass Amherst or Cambridge); it's all vulgar economics otherwise.
Whats special about the economics programs at New School, UMass Amherst and Cambridge? Would you recommend them?

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:30 am
Don't bother studying economics at a university (unless you are at New School or UMass Amherst or Cambridge); it's all vulgar economics otherwise.

I'm really knowledgeable on economics, I've been studying it carefully for a good long while now. I'm probably more familiar with non-orthodox ("heterodox") economics that require a great deal of mathematical rigor than that which you'd learn as an undergrad at uni.

Again, don't study economics at university; study it on your own time.
Its a lil late, 4th yr econ major and trying to finish the minor in marxist studies
Though Im considering studying history at the grad level, and maybe focusing on economic history

What specific areas do u focus your study on?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by BreadBros+November 13, 2006 01:07 am--> (BreadBros @ November 13, 2006 01:07 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:30 am
Don't bother studying economics at a university (unless you are at New School or UMass Amherst or Cambridge); it's all vulgar economics otherwise.
Whats special about the economics programs at New School, UMass Amherst and Cambridge? Would you recommend them? [/b]
Well, UMass Amherst and New School teaches marxist economics (the former teaches all varieties of heterodox economics too).

Cambridge (in the UK) I recommend because they teach Neo-Ricardian economics, and it is in my bias that if one is going to repair marxist economics (which is "forked" from Ricardian economics) that it would be easier to "fork" Neo-Ricardian economics. The problem is that it would require complex systems theory and nonlinear dynamics, not to mention nonlinear feedback ;)

But in layman's terms: because they don't teach the orthodox bullshit. That is the only reason I would recommend them.


Tekun
Its a lil late, 4th yr econ major and trying to finish the minor in marxist studies
Though Im considering studying history at the grad level, and maybe focusing on economic history

What specific areas do u focus your study on? I'm actually a theoretical physicist who is currently working on the roles of topos in relational quantum theory and applying it to quantization techniques of general relativity (layman's version: I am a physicist working on quantum gravity).

I study economics as a pass time, and work on repairing and reconstructing marxist economics as I outlined aboved; specifically on answering the question whether capitalism will collapse and whether the transformation problem can be circumnavigated.

Recently though I've been working on theoretical physics more than economics, and haven't found the time for economics in a good long time. I need a break from physics soon :(