leftist economic theory.

[shorelinetrance]

Where can i read leftist economic theory relevant to modern times?

Having a hard time with my polemic against economic majors.

[Q]

Where can i read leftist economic theory relevant to modern times?

Having a hard time with my polemic against economic majors.

Could you be a bit more specific? What do you want to know? What do you mean by "modern times"?

[shorelinetrance]

Reading outdated revolutionary ideas does not fair well against modern economic theories.

I basically want to know during socialism/communism how would things work infrastructure and the like.

Basically how would socialism and communism work, is there a plan, or just wait till the revolution and wing it?

[Comrade Vasilev]

The way I see it, 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' politics are just both part of the whole spectrum of bourgeois politics. You'll notice those political designations only exist in bourgeois political activity. Any true revolutionary should disdain all 'politics' (bourgeois politics) in favor of working class organization.

[shorelinetrance]

Completely agree with that your saying, but what kind of economy would socialism have, planned economy etc etc.

i understand the philosophical part of socialism/communism, but now i want to further my knowledge on the in-use, practical application of these ideals.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Completely agree with that your saying, but what kind of economy would socialism have, planned economy etc etc.

i understand the philosophical part of socialism/communism, but now i want to further my knowledge on the in-use, practical application of these ideals.
There is only one economic choice, planned economy run by workers or unplanned economy run by the bourgeois, those who try to blind you with airy-fairy syndicalist 'alternatives' are just liberals who buy the bourgeois stereotype of socialism.

What is planned economy? What are some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor. Here you have one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society. Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.

[trivas7]

Where can i read leftist economic theory relevant to modern times?

Research this site, especially Research and Online Classes section in Resources; David Harvey's The Limits to Capital (http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Capital-New-David-Harvey/dp/1844670953/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216397057&sr=8-4) is an up-to-date version of Marxist economics.


The way I see it, 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' politics are just both part of the whole spectrum of bourgeois politics. You'll notice those political designations only exist in bourgeois political activity. Any true revolutionary should disdain all 'politics' (bourgeois politics) in favor of working class organization.
How this differs from a trade-union mentality escapes me.

[Niccolò Rossi]

i understand the philosophical part of socialism/communism, but now i want to further my knowledge on the in-use, practical application of these ideals.

What I think you're after is post-revolution economic structures and alternatives ie. how the economy would work. If so, you may want to try the following:

Fundamental Principals of Communist Production and Distribution - Jan Appel (http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik)
Towards a New Socialism - W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell (http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/)

[Comrade Vasilev]

How this differs from a trade-union mentality escapes me.
It's a pro-working class mentality, and one moreover that accepts that a political party is merely the political extension for the economic basis of that existing social class.

[Lost In Translation]

It's a pro-working class mentality
Don't trade unions consist of workers...? or are workers unions and trade unions polar opposites?

[Comrade Vasilev]

Don't trade unions consist of workers...? or are workers unions and trade unions polar opposites?
Most 'trade unions' in the typical sense are class collaborationist these days, and are little but a pseudo-corporatist extension of the government.

[Lost In Translation]

Ah, that clears things up. Thanks for proving Wikipedia wrong, comrade.

[jake williams]

Ah, that clears things up. Thanks for proving Wikipedia wrong, comrade.
Wikipedia is a very very good source, and very accessible, provided you read critically, pay at least some attentions to citations, cross-reference with other sources, compare versions of articles over time, etc. I use it regularly, but I wouldn't exactly take something from there and assume it to be true indefinitely (I might if I had to make a guess knowing no other information though). Something that's important to recognize is that on controversial subjects it can often be one of the best sources easily available - if you look at articles which receive a lot of attention, they're often better taken care of. It's not perfect, certainly, but neither are any published books by respected professors, which contain both accidental errors, and, regularly, worse bias than you find on Wikipedia.

[Lost In Translation]

Wikipedia is a very very good source, and very accessible, provided you read critically, pay at least some attentions to citations, cross-reference with other sources, compare versions of articles over time, etc. I use it regularly, but I wouldn't exactly take something from there and assume it to be true indefinitely (I might if I had to make a guess knowing no other information though). Something that's important to recognize is that on controversial subjects it can often be one of the best sources easily available - if you look at articles which receive a lot of attention, they're often better taken care of. It's not perfect, certainly, but neither are any published books by respected professors, which contain both accidental errors, and, regularly, worse bias than you find on Wikipedia.
I'll keep that in mind.

I find that for sciences and mathematics, Wikipedia is horrible. It's very superficial in some senses. However, for everything else, it's pretty good. I do have to read some of the stuff in the citations from now on :blushing:.

[Q]

I find wikipedia on all leftist matters extremely biased, which in turn reflects the consciousness that exists about socialist ideas among the working class and the influence of propaganda.

[leftist manson]

Where can i read leftist economic theory relevant to modern times?

Having a hard time with my polemic against economic majors.
Hi comrade,
I jus wanted to chip in. Read the robin blackburn article on new left review
(the very recent one). It's free. I know it's not marxist 'theory' per se but gives a rough idea about the general workings of the monetary/banking aspects of capitalist society.

[OI OI OI]

here (http://marxisteconomics.com/)
I could not find a better place on the internet.
It has helped me a lot.

[Asoka89]

For socialism (lower-stage) with a market for goods (though not for capital/labor) read "after capitalism"

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Something that's important to recognize is that on controversial subjects it can often be one of the best sources easily available - if you look at articles which receive a lot of attention, they're often better taken care of. It's not perfect, certainly, but neither are any published books by respected professors, which contain both accidental errors, and, regularly, worse bias than you find on Wikipedia.
IF you look at articles that receive a lot of attention by a wide variety of different people.

But there is also another type of wiki articles on controversial issues - those that don't receive a lot of attention and are mostly edited by one or two people. These tend to be EXTREMELY biased in favour of whatever opinion is held by the few people who edit them.

[marxiavelli]

Where can i read leftist economic theory relevant to modern times?

Having a hard time with my polemic against economic majors.

Fist of all, I wouldn't be quick to write off the classics. Marx is difficult to read but his basic ideas are just as relevant to today's economy as they were to the one that was developing in his own day. Furthermore, few people since Marx have been able to grasp those relations with the level of clarity he did.

If you're serious about getting into it, I would recommend reading Samuelson's "Economics" alongside Linder & Sensat's "Anti-Samuelson". Basically this is a thorough two-volume Marxist critique of basic economics as it is taught in American universities.

You might also want to look at Victor Perlo's "The Unstable Economy", which is a Marxist analysis of depressions and recessions since 1945.

[JimmyJazz]

I think you should read this essay (http://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman). Modern free-market economics is all about the consumer; classical political economy (which is the angle radicals take) is all about production and the social relations involved. If you and they have both read Adam Smith, that would probably be good common ground to start a discussion from. But anything after that will be tough because since Smith's time free market economics and political economy have diverged and have very little left in common. You might also check out some of these books (http://www.amazon.com/Criticizing-Capitalism/lm/RQMOI2ITZ079A/ref=cm_rna_own_lm) from your library.

Secondly, force them to keep the focus on world inequalities. The truth is that welfare capitalism seems to serve our Western consumer societies pretty decently--otherwise there would be a lot more support for radicalism, right? But the fact is that we live at the peak of an unsustainable, unjust, environmentally destructive world economic system. Don't let them squirrel their way out of the bigger picture by giving you anecdotes about how Soviet shoe factories slightly over or underproduced their goods. :rolleyes: You might also check out some of these books (http://www.amazon.com/Global-poverty/lm/R1CB427TH87GN7/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full). Ask them, if global capitalism is such an ideal arrangement, why the U.S. has used military intervention literally dozens of times since WWII to ensure its dominance and continue its spread.

Finally, central planning in the Soviet style is not the last word on socialism. There are various ways to do decentralized planning, and market socialism (the wiki page on this is good) is always a possibility for introducing socialism to econ majors inundated with simplistic pro-market ideology.

For your own sake, I suggest you keep in mind that there is no magic bullet either way. It is an ongoing and (by now) centuries-old debate between free marketeers an social welfarists. If there was a magic bullet to solve all the debates on all the issues, there would no longer be any disagreement. The debate usually comes down to this: some people are focused on inequality, and others are focused on growth. The academic economics discipline literally does not even give a nod to inequality as an issue of human importance--it's 100% concerned with growth. So realize that there will be a pretty fundamental value conflict between you and anyone who has been inundated with free market fundamentalist crap. Don't expect that you and they will ever come to a full agreement.

[GPDP]

Wow, great book list there.

Personally, I would recommend Robin Hahnel's "The ABC's of Political Economy". It's a pretty short book, but it gets the job done nicely.

[shorelinetrance]

Wow, great book list there.

Personally, I would recommend Robin Hahnel's "The ABC's of Political Economy". It's a pretty short book, but it gets the job done nicely.

sucks being poor, i really want to read all those books :(

[GPDP]

Well, my university's library has many of these books, so I don't have to pay a dime, unless I screw up and turn them in late.

Do you pirate all your vidya gaems, by any chance?