Rebel, wtf I don't understand this shit at all...

Here's the thing though, I took 3 years of orthodox econ. I know all that shit and this stuff still doesn't make sense to me. The book Rebel recommended simply isn't structure like an introductory text. It seems to me that 'post-Keynesianism' is not a coherent ideology, but rather a mishmash of different thoughts by people who were tangentially related to Keynes. Similar to how post-Marxism isn't just 'one thing' either. Calling yourself a post-Keynesian might as just mean nothing for all I care. I read a bunch of shit in this book, Kalecki's ideas about profit seem decent, but this book seems like it was made for people who are already familiar with the economists mention in it.

What about that book by pappa Wolff?

which one?

You don't understand it? You don't need to understand every single term in the book in detail you know, it gives you a line to help you understand the way it's using the words…

I do not understand what your issue is with it….can you give me an example?

That's right! It's not a coherent ideology, because it's not an ideology. It's a school of economics.

False, it is true Keynes.

Post-marxism and post-keynesian are not comparable, do not act like they are. Post is just a prefix that means relating to or using in a different context to what would usually come after the prefix.

I am simply confused that anyone would have trouble understand it… this isn't an attempt to be mean, it's just I don't get what's difficult for people to understand about this. You're not the first to call my attention to it either. About 2 others have said it was a bit difficult for them. But even they could get through it…

Can someone please link the PDF so I can check it out?

It's not a good introductory book for someone with little to no economic background despite the way the book is organized and written. I also wouldn't recommend Capital to someone with no background in economics either but at least with the readers and secondary guides you can actually dig in to the science over time.

Which book? His textbook? It's good because it's not purporting to teach you hardcore economics. It's an introduction to the different popular schools and it does a great job at doing that.

Yes but why not? I know 0 about economics yet I could understand it

OP here. It makes little sense to me because it's laid out like a book for economists. Capital made sense to me because the whole book is laid out so that the assumptions being made are made clear to you before building concepts off of them. The book you recommended is rather schizophrenic to the point that I just have the bookmarks open in my pdf reader and am just clicking through the whole thing every time I hit a brick wall. It reminds me more of reading documentation for a program than a introductory text to an economic theory.

Besides that, who exactly are the economist you like from that book? Is it Kalecki? As far as I can tell he's the only one who's even read a line of Marx or Luxembourg. Could you recommend me books by him instead? Including the book you recommended in your 'introduction to leftist literature' video is the equivalent of someone wanting to learn English and you chucking a dictionary at them.

This
I too have a hard time seeing the whole "socialist" part of Post- Keynesian. Mind you I have only read a brief overview, and I might have missed the strain of thought that embodies it.

bump

But it explains pretty much every term that you need to understand, so I still don't get it.

Kalecki, Keynes, Luxemburg, Minsky, all of them.

I can't, because those are difficult books…

Read the socialist chapter in the book.

Most post-keynesians are not socialists, but are either new or old socdems. However there are many socialists, such as Kalecki and Minsky and Luxemburg.

Luxembourg literally isn't even mentioned in this book aside from as an inspiration for Kalecki, so I don't know where you're getting this from. Besides that, she died before Keynes was even writing anything.

Then what's even the point of calling yourself a post-Keynesian if you don't even understand their logic? Like for example, I agree with them that full-employment is a desirable goal, but I could not tell you how it could be achieved under Capitalism or even whether or not it would be a good thing under Capitalism. Kalecki and Minsky clearly have answers for them, but they will use long drawn out equations in order to explain it to you. I can't say for certain whether they are right or wrong because I barely understand their argument. I'm sure An-Caps at least understand Rothbard, and I can refute them Marx because I understand Marx. I understand trying to appropriate Keynes, Kalecki, Minksky, et al. for the purpose of arguing against neoliberals sure, but you aren't going to get people here to start calling themselves 'post-Keynesians' if they can't even sell their ideas to the masses. Certain ideas you might be able to sell sure, but I'm sitting here reading about how these guys think that you should look at the economy with fixed prices and create models using investments and savings, yet I have no earthly idea why. They don't provide graphs or reasoning, I'm expected to already have a position on this.

I sent your book to my proto-Maoist friend who actually knows Keynes and majored in Econ, so maybe he might be able to explain this stuff to me better. But I'm giving you a perspective from someone who's already read Marx and most of the classical/neo-classical economists. I didn't do particularly well in my Macroecon course in college, so maybe I just don't have the mind for this stuff, but from my view you've picked a particularly obscure branch of economics to try and sell to people who've probably never even picked up an econ text.

Because you don't learn a subject in alphabetical order, and you don't learn macroeconomics without doing math, working on case studies, and drilling problems. It'd be better to take an introductory micro and macro class and then use the book to supplement later study. Varoufakis has a similar book that supplements someone taking orthodox econ courses.

You don't need to take orthodox econ courses or read the textbooks to understand Marxian econ to an extent because it's operating in a very different framework, argues normative values that exist outside of the mathematics of orthodox econ, and because it's an entirely different school. It would certainly help to shore up the understanding, but it's not necessary. But the different Keynesian schools exist within the world of orthodox economics even if post-Keynesian econ is classified as heterodox and you do need a foundation.

But no, just from browsing syllabi for heterodox and post-Keynesian courses, nobody uses this book. It's not a good excuse to say, "But it's just an introduction." Surveys of economic history and macroeconomics classes at universities with a strong heterodox bend are introductory as well.

No. You all need to grow up at some point. For the greater good of all working class you should join the only relevant political faction on the left: social democrats.

We did
then they killed Rosa and betrayed the workers by selling out to porkies neoliberal policies on account of how spineless of a political movement they are.

There is value in learning socdem econ, though.

Soviet Germany would have ended up just like Soviet union did. Full state capitalism without any actual liberty for the workers.

Which of Varoufakis books would you recommend btw? Foundations or Modern Political Economics? I already took econ in college so I'm considering the later rather than the former.

Yeah, but at least Soviet Germany probably would've just ended up with a lot of dead Germans, instead of WW2

I know. I just feel that it is limited as a movement

I know right! thank god for those fascists and right wingers coming to power on account of the SPD's weakness and turning Germany in to a authoritarian nightmare leading to the complete destruction of the nation! ;^)

...

If Communists had not provoked them and created moral justification for brownshirts things might have been different. Also total refusal form forming united front with SDP created power vacuum for Hitler to rise into power.

...

Ahhh reformists, never change

Thanks, I actually started reading the chapter on the Keynesian school because of this thread. Already, the book is far more comprehensive even when it doesn't stray from the maths.

...

Why did those communists exist again? OH RIGHT! because the SPD was impotent

At least we don`t abolish trade unions after taking power. Unlike communists do every single time.

W
E
W

Sure you don't, but you do pass a boatload of anti-worker laws.

If workers actually supported you, we would not control the wast majority of unions. You are just as bad as normal brand of fascists.

But your precious social democrats never deliver on their programs and continue to push for things the masses of workers riot over and stage massive country wide strikes over.

So much for your "getting shit done" eh.