Internationaler Sozialistischer Kampfbund may be interesting for you. The Zeitgeist Movement and Parecon system of economics may also be of interest.
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Non-Marxist analysis
Does anyone suscribe to non-Marxist economic theory, or apply non-marxist (but leftist) analysis of capitalism, I know many socialists use and respect a lot of keynsian economics (as do I), and different parts of institutional economics (as do I). However as far as I know almost all socialist economics and socialist analysis is based minly on Marxism and sometimes Keynsianism, am I wrong here? As far as I know the Anarchist tradition also basically uses the same economic analysis as Marx, even if they have different solutions.
Internationaler Sozialistischer Kampfbund may be interesting for you. The Zeitgeist Movement and Parecon system of economics may also be of interest.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Everything else is Utopian bullshit.
Have fun trying to find something better than Marxism.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Participatory economics does not analyze capitalism. There is a difference between positive and normative, descriptive and prescriptive.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, fuck yeah.
"Property is theft." -- P.J. Proudhon
"Property is liberty." -- P.J. Proudhon
"Property is impossible." -- P.J. Proudhon
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with the subscripts attached for maximum clarity.
"Property1 is theft" means that property1 created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.
"Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are co-mingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by the parties to it, can true independence be achieved.
"Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (=property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties 1 and 3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.
It is averred, of course, that property2 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians -- especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand -- is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property2 and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.
Seriously, read some Proudhon for a good alternative to Marxist analysis.
[FONT=Arial]“Whoever labours becomes a proprietor... And when I say proprietor, I do not mean simply (as do our hypocritical economists) proprietor of his allowance, his salary, his wages, – I mean proprietor of the value he creates, and by which the master alone profits... The labourer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right in the thing he has produced.”[/FONT]-Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?, pg. 123-4
Marxian economic analysis of the division of labor's product and the theory of the social antagonism that emerges as a consequence of that division under capitalism ha[ve]not been superceeded.
Whatever there is of educational value in so-called Keynesian economics comes directly (or indirectly) from a tacit acknowlegement on the part of Keynes' of the Marxian Law of Value.
Like Darwin's theory of natural selection and the ascent of species, Marx's theory of capital has withstood revision and amendment with all essentials intact.
Last edited by Book O'Dead; 2nd August 2011 at 15:56. Reason: grammar: "ha[ve]" for "has"
I didn't think Gacky was asking only for strict analyses but also for non-marxist left theories etc...
"Participatory economics, often abbreviated parecon, is an economic system proposed primarily by activist and political theorist Michael Albert and radical economist Robin Hahnel, among others. It uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the production, consumption and allocation of resources in a given society. Proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalist market economies and also an alternative to centrally planned socialism, it is described as "an anarchistic economic vision",[1] and it could be considered a form of socialism as under parecon, the means of production are owned by the workers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
citing ^ Albert, Michael Parecon: Life After Capitalism Chapter 19 Individuals / Society
http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source...5V2l8w&cad=rja
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
I read some of the economists from the Austrian school. I find that understanding how capitalists see how their system works gives me a better grip on my Marxist perspective.
In the German-speaking world, groups like INWO advocate Gesell's Freiwirtschaft, a Proudhon-inspired anti-capitalist economic vision coming from a book that kept mocking Marx. If I remember rightly, he dismisses Capital as "three lengthy volumes" that aren't worth reading. Oh, and there's a little story in it about Robinson Cruesoe and he says "I can tell you've been stuck on this island for a while; you still believe that outdated Marxist stuff! We aren't so backwards anymore!"...fun book, I like it
...but it's only sometimes socialist...
I'm not trying to find something better, just different viewpoints and different takes, I don't think keynsianism is better or worse than marxism, its a different take on different aspects.
I know about parecon, but that was'nt really what I was talking about, I was looking for for economics that analyzes capitalism.
Of coarse, how did I miss that :P.
I totally agree, and I am by no means dismissing Marxism. also its not so-called keynsian economics, thats what it is :P, and keynsian economics does take a lot from marxism, juts as marxism took a lot from classical economics.
I would actually say that Proudhonist economics was itself used and superseded by Marx, so that some insights in Das Kapital were born out of analysis similar to that of Proudhon (although Marx never acknowledged this fact due to his political squabbles with Proudhon). The following articles by Iain McKay would seem to be a good introduction into Proudhon's economic views:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjpro...on-on-property
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjpro...-and-marx.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarc...n-exploitation
[FONT="Fixedsys"]History is not like some individual person which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends. - Karl Marx.
Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. - Friedrich Engels.
I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever. - Albert Einstein.[/FONT]
I'm also interested in looking into non marxist economists becuase Marx did'nt deal with a lot of aspects of Capitalism, he did'nt deal a lot with finance capital, not a lot with the consumer and so on (mainly because he died before he finished).
Luckily what he did write about can be applied more or less to other aspects, but not perfectly, and you need other types of analysis.
