what CURRENT person alive right now gives the BEST Marxist analysist?

[The Idler]

Chris Harman wrote Zombie Capitalism.

[Sendo]

Auto didact Brendan M Cooney is excellent.

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

I also like David Harvey, the Monthly Review guys, and think Michael Parenti offers the best social analysis out there.

Hells yeah on Cooney. Very classical though and he doesn't hold your hand all the way. He breaks down Kapital in a digestible way, but you have to do some leg-work in connecting to the present day.

That is where Parenti shines. He takes Marxism-Leninism and applies to present day conflicts like Yugoslavia, Reaganism, environmental catastrophe, military-industrial complexes, etc. He's also a great source for re-learning figures like Caesar from an honest perspective. Admittedly, it's all in his voice with no guise of neutrality, but that's why it's so great. He explains himself, cites his sources, and exposes academic dishonesty. I always think of him as "applied Marxism" as opposed to "theoretical Marxism." He uses materialist framework to analyze the world, not to create new theories as such.

[A Marxist Historian]

Hells yeah on Cooney. Very classical though and he doesn't hold your hand all the way. He breaks down Kapital in a digestible way, but you have to do some leg-work in connecting to the present day.

That is where Parenti shines. He takes Marxism-Leninism and applies to present day conflicts like Yugoslavia, Reaganism, environmental catastrophe, military-industrial complexes, etc. He's also a great source for re-learning figures like Caesar from an honest perspective. Admittedly, it's all in his voice with no guise of neutrality, but that's why it's so great. He explains himself, cites his sources, and exposes academic dishonesty. I always think of him as "applied Marxism" as opposed to "theoretical Marxism." He uses materialist framework to analyze the world, not to create new theories as such.

I'd vote for Joseph Seymour, the best Marxist economist around, and one of the best historians too.

Unfortunately, he hasn't written any full books, though quite a number of pamphlets. His signed articles in Workers Vanguard and Spartacist are not to be missed, and the recent ones at least can easily be found on the Spartacist website, just search using his name.

I'll give two examples:

His brilliant analysis of the political-ideological situation in the world resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I think is seminal.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/949/postsoviet.html

And a speech of his from a few years ago on how the economics of a workers state should actually work nowadays.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/989...ransition.html

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hells yeah on Cooney. Very classical though and he doesn't hold your hand all the way. He breaks down Kapital in a digestible way, but you have to do some leg-work in connecting to the present day.

That is where Parenti shines. He takes Marxism-Leninism and applies to present day conflicts like Yugoslavia, Reaganism, environmental catastrophe, military-industrial complexes, etc. He's also a great source for re-learning figures like Caesar from an honest perspective. Admittedly, it's all in his voice with no guise of neutrality, but that's why it's so great. He explains himself, cites his sources, and exposes academic dishonesty. I always think of him as "applied Marxism" as opposed to "theoretical Marxism." He uses materialist framework to analyze the world, not to create new theories as such.

Actually, I think you're using the wrong terms. It's the other way around.

"Theoretical Marxism" and "Academic Marxism" are materialist frameworks merely to analyze the world. "Applied Marxism," on the other hand (inclusive of "Programmatic Marxism"), is consistent with Marx's adage on philosophy and changing the world.

[SHORAS]

How many of these people are completely divorced from any practical activity?

On a separate note, workers themselves (you) need to be thinking and studying in a Marxist sense. The divorcing of theory and analysis by specialists from action and the class is a problem not something to accept or encourage.

Parenti, Zizek...fucksake.

[Kowalsky]

So on this understanding, Marx himself was incapable of giving a coherent Marxist analysis of reality?

it is noteworthy that he worked for long in couple with a guy called Engels...

[newdayrising]

Well, since this topic is about individuals, I won't say that I read the ICC and ICT press and consider both to be very good. Oops, already did...

Ok, as far as individuals go, I learn a lot from Loren Goldner.
Also, even if I disagree with him on almost every important political thing, I find Zizek very entertaining and thought-stimulating. I find his work interesting as it shows one can have a (n often - in Zizek's case) marxist analysis of subjects usually only covered by post modern or liberal thinkers, even though I'm critical of the actual positions derived from it.

[Minima]

1) Immanuel Wallerstein and his "gang of four" from Colombia SU

2) Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou, and their critical theory cohorts.

3) Minqi Li for Marxist World Systems Analysis (in china)

[A Marxist Historian]

Well, since this topic is about individuals, I won't say that I read the ICC and ICT press and consider both to be very good. Oops, already did...

Ok, as far as individuals go, I learn a lot from Loren Goldner.
Also, even if I disagree with him on almost every important political thing, I find Zizek very entertaining and thought-stimulating. I find his work interesting as it shows one can have a (n often - in Zizek's case) marxist analysis of subjects usually only covered by post modern or liberal thinkers, even though I'm critical of the actual positions derived from it.

Didn't Zizek call for voting for Obama?

In my book, that makes everything he ever wrote worthless.

-M.H.-

[black magick hustla]

goldner is really good. as well as TC,TPTG, and Endnotes.

[the last donut of the night]

goldner is really good. as well as TC,TPTG, and Endnotes.

you mean zizek right

[Mulciber]

Alan Woods for the win! I think he provides the best Marxist analysis of current events bar none (Hugo Chavez seems to agree). Rob Sewell and Fred Weston, also of the IMT, are damn good as well.

Other than that, recently I've started watching David Harvey's online lectures on Capital and the guy knows his stuff.

[GoddessCleoLover]

David Harvey knows his stuff.

[Sir Comradical]

I'd say David Harvey, just ignore the crap he says about how he wants to stabilise capitalism, in any case his economic analysis is still top notch. As for party websites, I go to WSWS and the ICL for my news, Ortho-Trot stuff.

[Sir Comradical]

Alan Woods for the win! I think he provides the best Marxist analysis of current events bar none (Hugo Chavez seems to agree). Rob Sewell and Fred Weston, also of the IMT, are damn good as well.

Other than that, recently I've started watching David Harvey's online lectures on Capital and the guy knows his stuff.

Well it's a mutual admiration society I suppose...

Hehehe. Woods is alright...

[Raó i força]

I'm just getin sick from all that new-age post-marxist, post-estructuralist, post-modernist, post-everything petit-bourgeois intellectuals. They're boring, repetitive, meaning-less, they think they're telling something different when usually just repeting old anarchist or left-populist dogmas.

I use to like anybody else. Nestor Kohan, from latin-america, is the kinda guy you'd like to have coffee with after some demonstration, pure leninist hardliner

(excuse my english folks )

[Risperdal]

Can I second Chris Harman?

While he died recently, his body of work is all insightful, and covers a large number of topics.

Books to check out:
The Fire Last Time (about the upturn of struggle in the late '60s)
People's History of the World (ambitious re-telling of human history, focusing on the developments of various class societies up to the 20th century)
The Lost Revolution (about the failed revolution in Germany, shortly after the Russian Revolution)
Zombie Capitalism (his last book, re-written shortly after GFC about the world economy and the latest crisis)

There are many others that are worth reading.

He also wrote a small 100 page book called "How Marxism Works", which outlines basic Marxist ideas in a very accessible way.

[Comrade Auldnik]

The D.P.R.K. and P.R.C. may not be properly socialist states, but they are being led by communists, misguided though they may be. They are still comrades and we do ourselves and communism no service by mocking them.

That said, I have an absolute boy-crush on Camila Antonia Amaranta Vallejo Dowling.

[Lucretia]

The D.P.R.K. and P.R.C. may not be properly socialist states, but they are being led by communists, misguided though they may be. They are still comrades and we do ourselves and communism no service by mocking them.

That said, I have an absolute boy-crush on Camila Antonia Amaranta Vallejo Dowling.

What, exactly, makes those rulers communist? The fact that their parties have the word "communist" in them?

[Comrade Auldnik]

What, exactly, makes those rulers communist? The fact that their parties have the word "communist" in them?

We're gonna play that sophomoric game, are we?

They are communist in that their ideologies are related to Marxism and have some basis in Marxism. I may be an anti-revisionist, but even anarchists are my comrades. We do no service to communism by isolating and alienating elements that could be improved. My interest is in building accurate theory, not drawing arbitrary lines in the sand against potential aid.