Looking for Marxism comment with many links September 11, 2012 7:40 PM Subscribe
Looking for a recent comment about Marxism, was chock full of links and written by someone who knew a lot about it. I'd like to read up.
Sorry, I don't know what thread it was in (that's why I'm asking here). Anyway I feel stupid that I failed to bookmark the comment / thread but I'd like to read the links that were offered. I think it was posted within the last two weeks.
Anyone remember it and maybe have a link to it?
Thanks in advance if you can help.
Sorry, I don't know what thread it was in (that's why I'm asking here). Anyway I feel stupid that I failed to bookmark the comment / thread but I'd like to read the links that were offered. I think it was posted within the last two weeks.
Anyone remember it and maybe have a link to it?
Thanks in advance if you can help.
I thought it was in a thread posted prior to that, but I'm not 100% certain.
I'll definitely give that post a thorough look though, thanks.
posted by marble at 7:49 PM on September 11, 2012
I'll definitely give that post a thorough look though, thanks.
posted by marble at 7:49 PM on September 11, 2012
It wasn't AlsoMike dropping into the discussion of his blog post about putting Kickstarter out of business, was it? Not a lot of linkage going on, but he gets into the Marxism some.
There's also valkyryn going verbose in the thread on New Evangelicals, strong on the links but kinda only skirting Marxism.
Oh but I think this is the one, after re-reading the bit about 'within the last two weeks': lucien_reeve gives a pocket description of Marxism per request in this thread on Trade-offs between inequality, productivity, and employment.
posted by carsonb at 8:27 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
There's also valkyryn going verbose in the thread on New Evangelicals, strong on the links but kinda only skirting Marxism.
Oh but I think this is the one, after re-reading the bit about 'within the last two weeks': lucien_reeve gives a pocket description of Marxism per request in this thread on Trade-offs between inequality, productivity, and employment.
posted by carsonb at 8:27 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
Perhaps the best answer in this question asking for a good intro to the subject.
posted by Abiezer at 8:32 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Abiezer at 8:32 PM on September 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
I only just discovered this question, since I don't check MetaTalk very often. If it was my comment you were referring to - as referenced by Carsonb, above, in an excellent round-up of interesting links - then that's great!
Whether it is or not, I'd like to add a couple of extra links to the ones in my post, in case anybody else is interested in exploring the "dark side" of economics a bit further.
First, it can sometimes help to get a sense of just how contested and, frankly, a bit shonky the ideas of mainstream neoclassical economics actually are. The classic starting point here is Steve Keen, a Professor of Economics at the University of Western Sydney. He wrote a book, Debunking Economics, and has a blog where he discusses his own economic ideas (which are rooted in the work of Hyman Minsky). If you don't want to read a whole book, you can get a flavour of his work, as well as a sense of some of the other contradictions and flaws in neoclassical economics, at this blog, Unlearning Economics. Browse around there for a bit and you can learn a lot - maybe start with his provocative series on free market double-standards.
Why does this matter? Because mainstream economics often presents itself as simply, scientifically true. It then deploys a lot of (sometimes very complex) mathematics to reinforce that impression. But actually, a number of its assumptions and conclusions don't seem to stand up when you look at them rationally and critically. This means that a lot of the so-called "progress" made in economics since Marx rests on foundations that are at least questionable (including one of the big ones, moving away from a labour theory of value towards one of marginal utility).
This is not to say that Marx was right about everything (I'm sure he wasn't). It's more that those who were keeping him out of the conversation maybe don't look so unassailable any more.
Second, anyone who really wants to dig into Marx's CAPITAL should probably try listening to geographer David Harvey's epic series of seminars. I'm averse to overusing the word 'epic', but here it seems justified.: he goes through the book piece-by-piece, in more detail than Professor Wolff.
I am only at the beginning of understanding economics in general and Marxist economics in particular. I would urge anyone who finds out more to come back to Metafilter and share with us all the results of your discoveries. Good luck!
posted by lucien_reeve at 4:39 AM on September 12, 2012 [14 favorites]
Whether it is or not, I'd like to add a couple of extra links to the ones in my post, in case anybody else is interested in exploring the "dark side" of economics a bit further.
First, it can sometimes help to get a sense of just how contested and, frankly, a bit shonky the ideas of mainstream neoclassical economics actually are. The classic starting point here is Steve Keen, a Professor of Economics at the University of Western Sydney. He wrote a book, Debunking Economics, and has a blog where he discusses his own economic ideas (which are rooted in the work of Hyman Minsky). If you don't want to read a whole book, you can get a flavour of his work, as well as a sense of some of the other contradictions and flaws in neoclassical economics, at this blog, Unlearning Economics. Browse around there for a bit and you can learn a lot - maybe start with his provocative series on free market double-standards.
Why does this matter? Because mainstream economics often presents itself as simply, scientifically true. It then deploys a lot of (sometimes very complex) mathematics to reinforce that impression. But actually, a number of its assumptions and conclusions don't seem to stand up when you look at them rationally and critically. This means that a lot of the so-called "progress" made in economics since Marx rests on foundations that are at least questionable (including one of the big ones, moving away from a labour theory of value towards one of marginal utility).
This is not to say that Marx was right about everything (I'm sure he wasn't). It's more that those who were keeping him out of the conversation maybe don't look so unassailable any more.
Second, anyone who really wants to dig into Marx's CAPITAL should probably try listening to geographer David Harvey's epic series of seminars. I'm averse to overusing the word 'epic', but here it seems justified.: he goes through the book piece-by-piece, in more detail than Professor Wolff.
I am only at the beginning of understanding economics in general and Marxist economics in particular. I would urge anyone who finds out more to come back to Metafilter and share with us all the results of your discoveries. Good luck!
posted by lucien_reeve at 4:39 AM on September 12, 2012 [14 favorites]
In that vein, this book might be of interest (PDF and file name gets title wrong, freakonomics not involved); charts the transition from political economy to narrow economics.
posted by Abiezer at 5:08 AM on September 12, 2012
posted by Abiezer at 5:08 AM on September 12, 2012
Can I just chuck in Michael Heinrich's newly translated Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital?
I've just started reading it, but I'm finding it fascinating. Heinrich's tradition (value-form theory) is hardly mainstream outside of Germany, but it makes a great contrast to Harvey's book (and it has the added bonus of being shorter).
I also find the Anarchist FAQs useful, especially Section C.
posted by spectrevsrector at 6:45 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
I've just started reading it, but I'm finding it fascinating. Heinrich's tradition (value-form theory) is hardly mainstream outside of Germany, but it makes a great contrast to Harvey's book (and it has the added bonus of being shorter).
I also find the Anarchist FAQs useful, especially Section C.
posted by spectrevsrector at 6:45 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
> In that vein, this book might be of interest (PDF and file name gets title wrong, freakonomics not involved);
Then it might be helpful for you to mention the actual name and author. (Wasn't there a MeTa thread recently about how much everyone hates blind links?)
posted by languagehat at 8:20 AM on September 12, 2012
Then it might be helpful for you to mention the actual name and author. (Wasn't there a MeTa thread recently about how much everyone hates blind links?)
posted by languagehat at 8:20 AM on September 12, 2012
So, uh.... marble?
posted by carsonb at 10:51 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by carsonb at 10:51 AM on September 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 7:44 PM on September 11, 2012