/lit/ - Literature

Anything Sombart wrote

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

>>14271738
Start with the classics
Marx uses the whole body of classical economics to argue against capitalism. The essentials would be:
-Smith (obviously)
-Ricardo
-Mill
-Say
-de Sismondi
you can suplement them with
-Tooke
-McCulloch
-Cairnes
-physiocrats
-Whewell
there are a lot of companions to classical economics so it shouldn't be too complicated to get over
once you're finished learn linear algebra and I don't mean bullshit like you do in American college (Cramer's rule, solving basic linear equation) but more serious stuff (eigenvalues, kernels and linear maps) trust me it will come in handy especially when you keep it mind not to sperg out into math and read on theory of linear economic models
once you've done that read Marx in the following order
-Wage Labor and Capital
-Grundrisse
-Capital vol 1
-Capital vol 2
-Capital vol 3
-Theories of Surplus Value
all the way you can suplement this with companions on Marx's economics and Marx's more lightweight readings like Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and German Ideology

Op here. I am pretty sure there is a chart. Please post if you have it.

Don't bother, read Kropotkin

>>14271738
There is another one as well

>>14272265
Thanks frens

>>14271738
>>14272265
I think there’s even a third one but I can’t find it right now

>>14271783
No one is going to read all of that. He wants to know about marxist economics not become an historian of economic thought. Ignore this.
If you want to learn marxist economics, read Marx. Simple as that. Begin with the 1844 manuscripts. They mostly deal with philosophical issues but the first part has a collection of Adam Smith and other classical economists fragments that it's really useful for understanding what Marx took from them. Go on with Poverty of Philosopy, then you can dive straight into Capital. I recommend Rosdolsky and Harvey's books on Capital as a companion.

>>14271738
>>14272285
>>14272265
Pt 2 btw Chang is so exhilarating read everything by him before continuing chart 1 and also read mankiw’s macroeconomics and watch marginal university on youtube to have even a rudimentary understanding of economics.

>>14272333
don't read chang

>>14271738
Bit pedantic, but important. Marx doesn't have an economics, but a *critique* of political economy, just as he has a critique of philosophy, etc.. You're not going to find in his stuff an ontology of labor, or a "labor theory of value", but a critique of the labor theory of value (which originates with Smith, Ricardo, etc.). And by critique, I mean an inquiry into its object's conditions of possibility and possibility of transformation.

>>14272342
>>14271738
Anon if you want to have a real interest in and actually learn some econ; If you aren’t already heavily invested you need to read Chang

>>14272333
why not this too

>>14271738
For the love of God OP, please don't read most of the stuff recommended here. Listen to >>14272348 and >>14271783.

Next thing to consider is that a lot of "Marxian economics" is sophistry and misinterpretations of Marx's core method of inquiry and his metaphysics. They fail to grasp value as a social relation, not merely a quantitative magnitude. Unsurprisingly, most of the critiques of Marx, including Samuelson's, are simply re-hashes of Bohm-Bawerk's. For a brief overview and response to Bohm-Bawerk's arguments, which form the core of almost every criticism of Marx's "economics" today, please read "Why labour is the starting point of Capital" by Geoffrey Kay. I can't recommend that one chapter enough.

Be highly suspicious of any "Marxist economics" that starts by proclaiming the death of the "labour theory of value", but be on the look out for mathematical texts that deal with the transformation problem (when you get to that point). Roberto Veneziani and Simon Mohun (who are both socialists, but not really Marxists) have a good overview of the history of the transformation problem.

Look into value-form theory and the internal debates, in particular Rubin, Patrick Murray, Elena Louise Lange, Guglielmo Carchedi, James Furner, Diane Elson, Guido Starosta and others. Take a look at Murray's "The Mismeasure of Wealth" in particular. Be wary of Andrew Kliman and Chris Arthur, the "Uno School" (Kozo Uno, Albritton, Sekine etc.) and along with Fred Moseley they're all worth at least a cursory look, and maybe you find them convincing. There is also a good translation of Samezo Kuruma's work published with Brill. Brill has also (last month) published "Invisible Leviathan" by M. E. G. Smith, something that's worth getting a hold of when it appears on libgen. Brill actually publishes a *lot* of good books on Marx and Marxism today, though not really on the mathematical side.

If you're interested in the mathematical side, look at sources about the transformation problem and the Okishio Theorem, but for why Okishio doesn't prove what he wants to prove, look at Barry Finger's essay on it.

Keywords when you search on Google Scholar: "transformation problem", "labour theory of value", "Okishio", "GCET", "TSSI", "Samuelson Marx". For exploitation, try Naoki Yoshihara and John Roemer, though they don't use value approaches. The same goes for Cohen. If you're interested in knowing where Cohen goes wrong, not just on his rejection of the law of value, check out Derek Sayer.

If you're not averse to Facebook (I am, but this is the only reason I use it), check out the "Value-Form Group: Critique of Political Economy, Neue Marxlektüre, VFT" group which has a lot of good discussions and pointers to literature on the topic.

>>14272744

I'd also recommend Postone's "Time, Labor, and Social Domination" with the caveat that Postone doesn't have the best grasp on the history of Marxism.

>>14272744
You do know what you're talking about anon. Do you have any other recommendations of groups or forums where there is active discussion of marxist economical theory? I've been looking for things like that since leftypol died but haven't found too much

>>14272790
>>14272744
>>14272562
>>14272405
>>14272348
>>14272342
>>14272333
>>14272323
>>14272304
>>14272285
>>14272262
>>14272172
>>14271789
>>14271783
>>14271751
>>14271738
>>14271741
Reminder to you trannies that labor theory of value is wrong and is pseudoeconimics so all of Marxism collapses on itself.

>>14271738
I'll save you the time of reading Marx only to realize it's retarded bullshit. Read Progress and Poverty by Henry George instead.

>>14272820
Pseudoscience is the leftist’s favorite tool, it’s how they get around not having a religion. Their take on economics is mental gymnastics to justify their fantasy utopia. Nobody intelligent believes in this stuff, which is why all leftists are highly agreeable. They can’t think for themselves so they all parrot the same theories but have no understanding of them and therefore can’t say their flaws. They have to appeal to authority. And if you object you deny (psuedo)science!

I am content knowing all their studying will not impact the real world at all because all leftists are pussies. Your theories are only as strong as the force behind them, and a bunch of betas and cucks who have never been in a fight are not going to be the grassroots of ANY revolution. I respect the historical communists 1000x more because they actually were strong people.

>>14272818
I'm afraid not, there doesn't even seem to be any on Reddit, if you have questions about Marx's work itself but you don't mind missing out on stuff that's come out after Marx (or other scholary stuff) then /r/Marxism and /r/Marxism_101 can sort you out. I think the /leftypol/ crowd has gone to Bunkerchan now, but I haven't spent much time there.

The only advice I can give is to not think dogmatically, but also to keep an open mind. For every Marxist/Marx-inspired/socialist economist or philosopher of economics who accept the "labour theory of value", there's another who doesn't. In reality, you have to end up asking what you want the theory for. If it's just to account for exploitation which is visible day to day, there are quite a few approaches that don't use value at all to show the exploitation under capitalism.

The other advice I can give is *not* to go to "economics" circles about this. In general they have no idea about the internal debates within the field, and they have completely elementary objections to Marx which have been addressed a hundred times over by not only Marxists but other heterodox economists.

Most people still publishing on Marx generally have e-mail addresses you can reach out to for questions or for finding more information/recs. I haven't tried that yet, but I have heard back from people who've discussed with them significantly. Some of them are even active on blogs. There are published Marxian economists and philosophers on the FB group I mentioned, including James Furner and Elena Louise Lange - so I think they'd be happy to receive e-mails too.

>>14272820
>>14272852
Arthur, Kliman, Murray, Cockshott, Shaikh and Tonak, Lange and Starosta all argue that the LTV is true, and from totally different viewpoints. That should show you that at least maybe it's something worth considering and looking into. And AFAIK no mainstream/neoclassical economist has responded to any of them yet.

If anything, what you're saying has more relevance to neoclassical economists, who literally haven't even looked at Marx since the late 80s. They're the ones parroting things that have been debunked a few times over. Go up to any econ student, and even some neoclassical economists proper, and ask them what they think of the criticisms of neoclassical economics. There's a good chance they'll ask "what criticisms?". At least the Marxists admit they've faced challenges.