Socialist economic links wanted.

[Nusocialist]

I'm really interested in economics and am looking for as much information on socialist economics and general heterodox economics as possible.
Can anyone help?

Also are there any books anyone can recommend?

[Nusocialist]

Bump

[KC]

I posted a sticky in the Theory forum with a transcripted book called Marx's Kapital For Beginners that's a great introduction to Marxist economics. After that I would recommend reading both Wage Labour & Capital and Value, Price & Profit, then if you're up for it move on to Capital Vol. 1.

[Leo]

Also, you can check Grundrisse, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Theories of Surplus-Value by Marx and The Accumulation of Capital by Rosa Luxemburg. If you are interested in Russia, definitely The Development of Capitalism in Russia by Lenin. Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory by Mattick is also interesting.

[Nusocialist]

Thanks guys,but I'm quite familiar with the basics like that,I was looking for more advanced socialist and heterdox economics.

[KC]

Read Capital.

Perhaps some Hilferding or Sraffa?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 05, 2006 09:22 pm
I posted a sticky in the Theory forum with a transcripted book called Marx's Kapital For Beginners that's a great introduction to Marxist economics. After that I would recommend reading both Wage Labour & Capital and Value, Price & Profit, then if you're up for it move on to Capital Vol. 1.
I would recommend Value, Price, & Profit but not Wage Labor & Capital unless you were comparing a young Marx to a more mature Marx.

Some would like to point out that WL&C is "updated", as Engels boasts in the preface, but if you read what Engels says it's only a change in vocabulary not thought. It's still a young Marx developping his ideas.

Das Kapital is your best bet although it is the hardest too.

If you are looking for heterodox economics, you might want to try Evolutionary Economics, Neo-Ricardian Economics, and Complexity Economics. I don't know a great deal of books that exist for Evolutionary or Complexity economics, for Neo-Ricardian Economics the text to read is Production of Commodities by means of Commodities. Be warned it is a hard read (very mathematical).

If you are looking for an easier introduction, perhaps Debunking Economics is more up your alley?

[KC]

Das Kapital is your best bet although it is the hardest too.

Marx's economic theories on supply and demand as shown in Wage Labour & Capital are supported at various points throughout Capital as well as in the introduction written by Ernest Mandel. So I don't see what your problem with Wage Labour & Capital is, unless you think that Capital is also outdated, and that both Engels and Mandel are incorrect in their theories on marxist economics?



Some would like to point out that WL&C is "updated", as Engels boasts in the preface, but if you read what Engels says it's only a change in vocabulary not thought.

First, it was a change in thought. It was a massive change in thought. The move from "labour" to "labour-power" was a massive step in Marxist economics.

Second, this was the only change made to update it to fit with current Marxist economic theory because it was the only change that needed to be made. All of the theories in Wage Labour & Capital are correct after Engel's revision, and are supported by Marx's later economic works.

[ComradeRed]

Marx's economic theories on supply and demand as shown in Wage Labour & Capital are supported at various points throughout Capital as well as in the introduction written by Ernest Mandel. Proof?

Plus my copy doesn't have an introduction by Mandel, it just begins with the various prefaces by Marx and Engels on Das Kapital (and the TOC); I would bet that it's long, so I won't ask you to type it up, but do you have a link to it?


So I don't see what your problem with Wage Labour & Capital is, unless you think that Capital is also outdated, and that both Engels and Mandel are incorrect in their theories on marxist economics? Well...

a) There is a huge difference between the young Marx and mature Marx. Consider The Poverty of Philosophy to Das Kapital for one example.

b) It was before Marx studied a great deal more of economics and thought a great deal about it. He was still green behind the ears in his economic thought.

Further, I don't really know what Mandel's economic thought is since I have read only a pamphlet by him (hardly enough to consider his thoughts by!).

Engels' economic thought is too...odd, for lack of a better word. Aside from the fact that he hasn't really written anything on economics directly making it hard for anyone to judge him (good or bad), his edits of Marx's writings are questionable.

Are the edits merely ironing out Marx's thoughts, or are they insertions of Engels' own thoughts? For this reason, the works of Marx edited (heavily) by Engels should be weighed lightly in comparison to Marx's own works. That's my bias; although granted it would not really apply to WL&C.

For WL&C you have to take the two points I made heavily into consideration, in addition to the fact that Marx was not an infallable demigod. He made mistakes, and when he made them they were powerfully wrong mistakes (e.g. dialectics, or supply and demand).


First, it was a change in thought. It was a massive change in thought. The move from "labour" to "labour-power" was a massive step in Marxist economics. That's not a massive change in thought; rewriting an entire section would be a massive change in thought.

Updating the vocabulary is a minor update.


Second, this was the only change made to update it to fit with current Marxist economic theory because it was the only change that needed to be made. All of the theories in Wage Labour & Capital are correct after Engel's revision, and are supported by Marx's later economic works. Again, proof of supply and demand in Das Kapital please?

[KC]

Plus my copy doesn't have an introduction by Mandel, it just begins with the various prefaces by Marx and Engels on Das Kapital (and the TOC); I would bet that it's long, so I won't ask you to type it up, but do you have a link to it?

Unfortunately, no. I've looked everywhere online for it but haven't been able to find it. It's in the Penguin Classics edition of Capital, though, so if you find that you should pick it up. His introduction is exceptional. I think he wrote introductions to the subsequent volumes as well; I know he wrote one for Volume 2, but I'm not sure about 3. He probably did.



a) There is a huge difference between the young Marx and mature Marx. Consider The Poverty of Philosophy to Das Kapital for one example.


Well, of course there are many instances where the young Marx was proven wrong by the older Marx and his later writings, but that doesn't negate all work he did when he was younger. You can't just look at it and say "he was younger therefore this is probably wrong."



b) It was before Marx studied a great deal more of economics and thought a great deal about it. He was still green behind the ears in his economic thought.


That I can somewhat agree with, however I don't think I'd go to the extent that you are in saying that he didn't know what he was talking about. His concrete theories might not have been there but the fundamental principles on which they were based certainly were, and in many instances he did go into detail on them in a form that is in agreement with his later works. I don't consider Wage Labour & Capital to be an indepth economic analysis, but I do think that it sums up his basic views on economics rather well.



Further, I don't really know what Mandel's economic thought is since I have read only a pamphlet by him (hardly enough to consider his thoughts by!).


He's pretty much one of the most prominent Marxist economists of the 20th century. I highly suggest you read some of his works.



Engels' economic thought is too...odd, for lack of a better word. Aside from the fact that he hasn't really written anything on economics directly making it hard for anyone to judge him (good or bad), his edits of Marx's writings are questionable.


What edits would those be?



For WL&C you have to take the two points I made heavily into consideration, in addition to the fact that Marx was not an infallable demigod. He made mistakes, and when he made them they were powerfully wrong mistakes (e.g. dialectics, or supply and demand).


Yes, of course he isn't infallible, and I'm not holding him to that. However, we also can't just dismiss some of his writings as incorrect for a reason like this. I think you're going about this discussion the wrong way. You are questioning Marx's knowledge at the time, and have not yet discussed the theory in which this discussion is truly about. This isn't a discussion about Marx; it's a discussion about Wage Labour & Capital, in particular part three which is the part about supply and demand, and its relevance to Marxist economic theory. So far you've provided reasons why you think he was wrong, but you haven't discussed how he's wrong. We certainly can't discuss why he's wrong if we haven't yet determined whether or not he's wrong in the first place, so let's stick to that.


That's not a massive change in thought; rewriting an entire section would be a massive change in thought.

Updating the vocabulary is a minor update.

I was talking about a massive change in thought in terms of Marxist economic theory, and not just Wage Labour & Capital. I misinterpreted you. My mistake.


Again, proof of supply and demand in Das Kapital please?

Well, Marx didn't write heavily on this subject because it wasn't relevant to his studies. While suply and demand helps determine the market price of a commodity, he wasn't concerned with this. He was more concerned with how the capitalist system works, to which market prices are somewhat irrelevant. Or, as Mandel puts it in the introduction to Capital Vol. 1:


...It is immediately clear that, contrary to what so many of his critics starting with the Austrian Bohm-Bawerk assumed, Marx never intended to explain short-term price fluctuations on the market with his theory of value. (Probably he intended to raise some of the problems involved in short-term price fluctuations in the never-written Volume 6 of the original plan for Capital.) Nor does it make any sense to speak of the labour theory of value, as explained in Volume 1 of Capital, as a 'micro-economic theory' allegedly in contrast with the 'macro-economic' labour theory of value in Volume 3. What Marx tried to discover was a hidden key behind price fluctuations, the atoms inside the molecule so to speak. He moved the whole economic analysis to a different and higher level of abstraction. His question was not: how does Sammy run (what movements do his legs and body make while running), but what makes Sammy run.

So then we have to ask ourselves, what, then, determines the market price of a commodity? Obviously it's not the labour embodied in the commodity, otherwise the labour embodied in the commodity would fluctuate with the price, when this clearly isn't the case. There's many examples that would support this, such as the price of gas changing daily sometimes multiple times a day. Obviously the value of the gas doesn't fluctuate that much, or rather, the amount of labour embodied in it doesn't fluctuate to that extent. So something else must be making the market price of gasoline fluctuate. Now, of course the value of gasoline plays a part. Marx recognized this in Wage Labour & Capital. So did Mandel in his introduction:


To say that commodities have qualities in common other than the fact that they are products of social labour transforms an analysis of social relations into a logical parlour game. Obviously, these 'other qualities' have nothing to do with the nexus between members of society in an anarchic market economy. The fact that both bread and aeroplanes are 'scarce' does not make them commensurable. Even when thousands of people are dying of hunger, and the 'intensity of need' for bread is certainly a thousand times greater than the 'intensity of need' for aeroplanes, the first commodity will remain immensely cheaper than the second, because much less socially necessary labour has been spent on its production

Marx's theory in Wage Labour & Capital is much different than a bourgeois economist's theory on supply and demand. His theory is based on class struggle. He defines supply and demand as a threefold process:

1. Competition between capitalists.
2. Competition between workers.
3. Competition between workers and capitalists.

He goes on to say that, while the market price of a commodity fluctuates due to this supply and demand, it always equilibrates at its cost of production. Here is an excerpt:


We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production.

The determination of price by the cost of production is not to be understood in the sense of the bourgeois economists. The economists say that the average price of commodities equals the cost of production: that is the law. The anarchic movement, in which the rise is compensated for by a fall and the fall by a rise, they regard as an accident. We might just as well consider the fluctuations as the law, and the determination of the price by cost of production as an accident – as is, in fact, done by certain other economists. But it is precisely these fluctuations which, viewed more closely, carry the most frightful devastation in their train, and, like an earthquake, cause bourgeois society to shake to its very foundations – it is precisely these fluctuations that force the price to conform to the cost of production. In the totality of this disorderly movement is to be found its order. In the total course of this industrial anarchy, in this circular movement, competition balances, as it were, the one extravagance by the other.

We thus see that the price of a commodity is indeed determined by its cost of production, but in such a manner that the periods in which the price of these commodities rises above the costs of production are balanced by the periods in which it sinks below the cost of production, and vice versa. Of course this does not hold good for a single given product of an industry, but only for that branch of industry. So also it does not hold good for an individual manufacturer, but only for the whole class of manufacturers.

The determination of price by cost of production is tantamount to the determination of price by the labor-time requisite to the production of a commodity, for the cost of production consists, first of raw materials and wear and tear of tools, etc., i.e., of industrial products whose production has cost a certain number of work-days, which therefore represent a certain amount of labor-time, and, secondly, of direct labor, which is also measured by its duration.

Now, I don't see anything wrong with this theory, and I really don't feel like digging through capital for 2 or 3 hours looking for examples, so let's start out with this.

[Leo]

I would recommend Value, Price, & Profit but not Wage Labor & Capital unless you were comparing a young Marx to a more mature Marx.

I really think that "Young Marx" vs. "Mature Marx" thing is a myth for the most part.


There is a huge difference between the young Marx and mature Marx. Consider The Poverty of Philosophy to Das Kapital for one example.

Well, there are some subjects he refuted himself, but he developed on the direction of others. The most common example is this sentence "young Marx said alienation, mature Marx said labor theory of value", where the exact link between the two (commodity fetishism) is ignored. Throwing all said by "young Marx" to the trash is a bad idea in my opinion.


That's not a massive change in thought; rewriting an entire section would be a massive change in thought.

Updating the vocabulary is a minor update.

It is not that simple I'm afraid; it's not just a minor vocabulary update. "Labor" and "labor power" are very distinct in economics. (In fact, Lenin made a great economical mistake here, mixing the two in "State and Revolution") The practical implication of the famous formulation; "from all according their ability, to all according to their need" depends on labor power, and so does capitalist production of commodities. What the capitalist hires from a worker is his labor power for a certain wage but what he gets is his labor, the "value" which creates the product. Under capitalism, ultimately, a workers wage (and initially him keeping the job) is determined by the commodity's value in exchange and the profitability of the commodity (which depends on supply & commercials and needs). Initially, giving the minimal amount according to labor value is the one of the main characteristics of the wage system. With the communist system however, all will get what they need, i.e get according to their labor power, which, of course, they will be directing according to their abilities. The abolition of the wage system is important, and labor power is a very important step in the realization of this.

[ComradeRed]

Zampano:

Well, of course there are many instances where the young Marx was proven wrong by the older Marx and his later writings, but that doesn't negate all work he did when he was younger. You can't just look at it and say "he was younger therefore this is probably wrong." I didn't say such; I said if you want to study early Marx and the transition in his thoughts, then by all means study WL&C and POP and other such works.

If you are looking to Marx's thoughts on economics then look at his mature works rather than his unrefined thoughts.

On the other hand, if you are a scholar on Marx's thoughts and its evolution then by all means study everything you can get your hands on.

There is no reason, at least none presented, to study Marx's unrefined thoughts in economics (especially when it is stuff written before he really started studying economics heavily!) other than "but it doesn't negate all his earlier works" for no other reason than mere assertions.


That I can somewhat agree with, however I don't think I'd go to the extent that you are in saying that he didn't know what he was talking about. His concrete theories might not have been there but the fundamental principles on which they were based certainly were, and in many instances he did go into detail on them in a form that is in agreement with his later works. I don't consider Wage Labour & Capital to be an indepth economic analysis, but I do think that it sums up his basic views on economics rather well. Consider the very first sentence in the section By what is the price of a commodity determined? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm):

Originally posted by Marx
By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer. --emphasis added

Which is not covered and as a matter of fact directly challenged by his position taken in Das Kapital vol. I, where he defines price ([1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm)) as:

It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Just the contrary. It is because all commodities, as values, are realised human labour, and therefore commensurable, that their values can be measured by one and the same special commodity, and the latter be converted into the common measure of their values, i.e., into money. Money as a measure of value, is the phenomenal form that must of necessity be assumed by that measure of value which is immanent in commodities, labour-time. [1.

The expression of the value of a commodity in gold — x commodity A = y money-commodity — is its money-form or price. A single equation, such as 1 ton of iron = 2 ounces of gold, now suffices to express the value of the iron in a socially valid manner. There is no longer any need for this equation to figure as a link in the chain of equations that express the values of all other commodities, because the equivalent commodity, gold, now has the character of money. The general form of relative value has resumed its original shape of simple or isolated relative value. On the other hand, the expanded expression of relative value, the endless series of equations, has now become the form peculiar to the relative value of the money-commodity. The series itself, too, is now given, and has social recognition in the prices of actual commodities. We have only to read the quotations of a price-list backwards, to find the magnitude of the value of money expressed in all sorts of commodities. But money itself has no price. In order to put it on an equal footing with all other commodities in this respect, we should be obliged to equate it to itself as its own equivalent. --emphasis added

The expression of value through the money commodity (that is the price), and the value is created by labor-power([2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm)):

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.

These two points of view are fundamentally incompatible. One "could" generalize the young Marx and mature Marx to a pseudo-commodity theory of value that is perceivable as "supply and demand" influenced, but would lose every other aspect of Marxist economics.


He's pretty much one of the most prominent Marxist economists of the 20th century. I highly suggest you read some of his works. I didn't say I had no clue who he was, I said I didn't read anything other than a pamphlet by him.


What edits would those be? Well Das Kapital vol. II and III were essentially loose notes (this is more true for vol. III than vol. II, the second volume was a collection of manuscripts that weren't complete). I would consider the third volume more a work of Engels than Marx.


This isn't a discussion about Marx; it's a discussion about Wage Labour & Capital, in particular part three which is the part about supply and demand, and its relevance to Marxist economic theory. So far you've provided reasons why you think he was wrong, but you haven't discussed how he's wrong. We certainly can't discuss why he's wrong if we haven't yet determined whether or not he's wrong in the first place, so let's stick to that. Look above in this post, gotchya covered chief.



Well, Marx didn't write heavily on this subject because it wasn't relevant to his studies. While suply and demand helps determine the market price of a commodity, he wasn't concerned with this. He was more concerned with how the capitalist system works, to which market prices are somewhat irrelevant. Or, as Mandel puts it in the introduction to Capital Vol. 1:


...It is immediately clear that, contrary to what so many of his critics starting with the Austrian Bohm-Bawerk assumed, Marx never intended to explain short-term price fluctuations on the market with his theory of value. (Probably he intended to raise some of the problems involved in short-term price fluctuations in the never-written Volume 6 of the original plan for Capital.) Nor does it make any sense to speak of the labour theory of value, as explained in Volume 1 of Capital, as a 'micro-economic theory' allegedly in contrast with the 'macro-economic' labour theory of value in Volume 3. What Marx tried to discover was a hidden key behind price fluctuations, the atoms inside the molecule so to speak. He moved the whole economic analysis to a different and higher level of abstraction. His question was not: how does Sammy run (what movements do his legs and body make while running), but what makes Sammy run.

So then we have to ask ourselves, what, then, determines the market price of a commodity? Obviously it's not the labour embodied in the commodity, otherwise the labour embodied in the commodity would fluctuate with the price, when this clearly isn't the case. There's many examples that would support this, such as the price of gas changing daily sometimes multiple times a day. Obviously the value of the gas doesn't fluctuate that much, or rather, the amount of labour embodied in it doesn't fluctuate to that extent. So something else must be making the market price of gasoline fluctuate. Now, of course the value of gasoline plays a part. Oh, well obviously it couldn't be any nonlinear factor which causes the "short term fluctuations"; it must obviously be "supply and demand", the concept with such a famous track record for accuracy in models. So far, all models of supply and demand have failed, great track record to fall back on at the end of the day.

The plain fact of the matter is that supply and demand is a linear theory and trying to explain nonlinear fluctuations with a linear theory ain't gonna work! (Some examples of this in the history of mechanics: general relativity replacing Newtonian cosmology, or quantum mechanics replacing Newtonian mechanics; both are nonlinear theories and Newtonian physics is extraordinarily linear. This really isn't unusual in the history of science.)

Of course we'd all like the simpler answer "Aha, supply and demand did it!" This is not really any different than "Aha, God did it!" in physics or biology: it's only acceptable as a joke. Both for the same reason of such terrible accuracy and consistencies in the theories.


Marx's theory in Wage Labour & Capital is much different than a bourgeois economist's theory on supply and demand. His theory is based on class struggle. He defines supply and demand as a threefold process:

1. Competition between capitalists.
2. Competition between workers.
3. Competition between workers and capitalists.

He goes on to say that, while the market price of a commodity fluctuates due to this supply and demand, it always equilibrates at its cost of production. Why is there only one point of equilibrium?

That is a serious error, in addition to the same problem of measuring the demand curve and supply curve.

Sure, it may be convenient to proclaim that Marx's "Superior" supply and demand is somehow "different" than those vulgar bourgeois economists' model, but supply and demand has the same problems regardless of origin!

Leo:

I really think that "Young Marx" vs. "Mature Marx" thing is a myth for the most part. I weep for your naivete.


It is not that simple I'm afraid; it's not just a minor vocabulary update. "Labor" and "labor power" are very distinct in economics. Thanks for ignoring my point.

My point was that completely rewriting a section is a huge update compared to updating the vocabulary.

Engels didn't really do anything major, just update the vocabulary. He didn't add, contribute, modify anything other than the vocabulary! That is MINOR.

[Leo]

I weep for your naivete.

Ah, just like a true academician <_<


Thanks for ignoring my point.

Thanks for ignoring my post.

[ComradeRed]

Ah, just like a true academician <_< No, you are right. How foolish I was to think that people change over time.

Obviously Marx was a demigod that had thoughts invariant to time. :rolleyes:


Thanks for ignoring my post. Yes, you too.

[Leo]

How foolish I was to think that people change over time.

Changing is one thing, turning about 180 degrees is another, which is what the bourgeois academics say about Marx.


Obviously Marx was a demigod that had thoughts invariant to time.

Oh nice, play the Cult Of Personality Card™, that completely refutes that Marx might have actually developed some thoughts he had when he was young instead of completely changing them. Very scientific <_<

And right, Marx was a demigod who destroyed armies of capitalism with lightning bolts coming out from his ass, that&#39;s what I believe :rolleyes:

[ComradeRed]

Changing is one thing, turning about 180 degrees is another, which is what the bourgeois academics say about Marx. Ideas before studying the subject are more likely than not to be wrong.

You just can&#39;t guess wildly and be right, even with the all might dialectic at your side.


Oh nice, play the Cult Of Personality Card™, that completely refutes that Marx might have actually developed some thoughts he had when he was young instead of completely changing them. Very scientific <_<

And right, Marx was a demigod who destroyed armies of capitalism with lightning bolts coming out from his ass, that&#39;s what I believe :rolleyes: Thanks again for completely missing my point&#33; Maybe one day you&#39;ll have a reading comprehension greater than that of a third grader, but we all can dream can&#39;t we?

[Leo]

Ideas before studying the subject are more likely than not to be wrong.

You just can&#39;t guess wildly and be right, even with the all might dialectic at your side.


So the idea of "alienation" was wrong? The idea of class struggle was wrong? All because Marx did not have enough "academic knowledge"?

Besides, the "young Marx" had indeed studied economics, he didn&#39;t just guess wildly. In fact saying that all the economical work of Marx was a load of bullshit depending only on dialectics is a pretty baseless thing, in my opinion.

One last thing, just so that you know, the all might dialectic is at least not at my side.


Thanks again for completely missing my point&#33;

Thanks again for completely missing mine&#33; Your point about the "thoughts invariant to time etc." was answered with the first point you made "How foolish I was to think that people change over time." If you didn&#39;t notice, you are practically saying the same thing.


Maybe one day you&#39;ll have a reading comprehension greater than that of a third grader, but we all can dream can&#39;t we?

Fuck off you patronizing bastard <_<

[ComradeRed]

So the idea of "alienation" was wrong? The idea of class struggle was wrong? All because Marx did not have enough "academic knowledge"? Yes, that&#39;s what I said. Thanks for your fantastic reading skillz :rolleyes:


Besides, the "young Marx" had indeed studied economics, he didn&#39;t just guess wildly. The earliest (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/marx/lifeandwork.htm) that I could find Marx getting into anything remotely resembling economics would be his interest in socioeconomics in 1843. Do you seriously think that 4 years is long enough to get mature ideas down?

History shows that it is typically 10 years (10 years after Mozart started composing he became really good, Einstein took 10 years to formulate Special Relativity then another 10 years to formulate General Relativity, etc.).

But of course, what does history and objective reality know? :rolleyes:

[Leo]

The earliest that I could find Marx getting into anything remotely resembling economics would be his interest in socioeconomics in 1843. Do you seriously think that 4 years is long enough to get mature ideas down?

History shows that it is typically 10 years (10 years after Mozart started composing he became really good, Einstein took 10 years to formulate Special Relativity then another 10 years to formulate General Relativity, etc.).

Lets take an easier example, and look at 1844 Manuscripts. He was about 26 in that year (I don&#39;t know when he started reading economics, but I started reading it when I was fifteen). Of course before writing about a subject, you have to read a lot about the subject, and the book shows that the author had done significant amounts of readings from famous economists of his time. Of course, some of his ideas weren&#39;t completely mature, but this doesn&#39;t prove everything about him wrong. There were some aspects which he progressed on instead of completely rejecting, in fact this is quite natural. There were some aspects which were quite interesting, some which he based his mature
ideas on. Of course he changed, but initially he had the same brain. I think throwing all the work by young Marx as valueless is simply academical dogmatism.

[ComradeRed]

Lets take an easier example, and look at 1844 Manuscripts. He was about 26 in that year (I don&#39;t know when he started reading economics, but I started reading it when I was fifteen). Of course before writing about a subject, you have to read a lot about the subject, and the book shows that the author had done significant amounts of readings from famous economists of his time. He started when he was in Paris, which was 1843.

My point isn&#39;t that you need to read a lot about the subject but you need to think for a long time about the subject&#33;

Einstein needed to think a great deal of time before he figured out the consequences of having the speed of light constant. He then needed to think a longer time to figure out the consequences of this on space and time due to acceleration.

Mozart needed to compose a great deal of times and practice a hell of a lot before he could just (all most mythically) compose genius works.

Now, Einstein did get some things right and Mozart composed some good music young, but a great deal of their work on their respective subjects wasn&#39;t really that good (young Mozart was rather bad, and Einstein beginning on relativity made a number of mathematical errors).

Marx, likewise, didn&#39;t mythically instaneously perceive or create all his opinions on economics once he gazed at the subject. It took a long time for him to form his ideas.


Of course before writing about a subject, you have to read a lot about the subject, and the book shows that the author had done significant amounts of readings from famous economists of his time. Yes, and he studied them for about ten years and then started to write Das Kapital.


Of course, some of his ideas weren&#39;t completely mature, but this doesn&#39;t prove everything about him wrong. There were some aspects which he progressed on instead of completely rejecting, in fact this is quite natural. There were some aspects which were quite interesting, some which he based his mature
ideas on. Yes, Marx&#39;s opinions on Supply and Demand are especially immature at this point (the mid 1840s) since he has only really read the ideas of the economists and haven&#39;t really formulated a great deal of his own.

As I stated earlier, if you want to study the evolution of Marx&#39;s thoughts in economics then by all means study the early stuff and the old stuff and his drafts, notes, etc. in between&#33;

But if you are looking for Marx&#39;s mature thoughts on economics, which is what I have been talking about this whole time, then by all means just study the mature stuff (and Value, Price and Profit falls into this category too). This does not apply to all of Marx&#39;s thoughts, and I never claimed it has; it applies for Marx&#39;s thoughts on economics.

[Leo]

He started when he was in Paris, which was 1843.

Okay...


My point isn&#39;t that you need to read a lot about the subject but you need to think for a long time about the subject&#33;

Well obviously, but you also think about what you read as well, does that not count?


Marx, likewise, didn&#39;t mythically instaneously perceive or create all his opinions on economics once he gazed at the subject. It took a long time for him to form his ideas.

Well, obviously.


As I stated earlier, if you want to study the evolution of Marx&#39;s thoughts in economics then by all means study the early stuff and the old stuff and his drafts, notes, etc. in between&#33;

But if you are looking for Marx&#39;s mature thoughts on economics, which is what I have been talking about this whole time, then by all means just study the mature stuff (and Value, Price and Profit falls into this category too).

Again, I find excessive amounts of academic dogmatism here. Mature ideas of Marx might be more solid and complete, but again, he doesn&#39;t become a demigod as well as he matures, some argues that there are very interesting economical ideas he left out in his mature work, some like yourself, argue that his economical ideas in in his youth did not even had the slightest potential to be worthy of reading as they are. I&#39;d say read all and decide. After all, after the "Dark Side of the Moon", Roger Waters wasn&#39;t a socialist anymore, right? I don&#39;t think this debate is going anywhere.

[ComradeRed]

Again, I find excessive amounts of academic dogmatism here It&#39;s an uncanny skill of yours to find what doesn&#39;t exist.


Mature ideas of Marx might be more solid and complete, but again, he doesn&#39;t become a demigod as well as he matures, some argues that there are very interesting economical ideas he left out in his mature work, some like yourself, argue that his economical ideas in in his youth did not even had the slightest potential to be worthy of reading as they are. Yes, that is exactly what I am arguing, good job. :rolleyes:

And by all means, please don&#39;t give any examples to back up your argument. Being vague and making absolutely no references to Marx&#39;s younger works is far more effective than giving examples. <_<