user, why haven't you read Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises by empirical Marxist Anwar Shaikh?
It updates and completes marxist economics for modern times and shows how it is empirically valid.
He has an open seminar/course on youtube which goes over it too:
youtube.com
the pdf can be found online at various locations, here's one:
Because I don't have time to read every single piece of radical leftist literature.
gonna order a paper copy, heard it get good reviews here and on 4pol
nice one retard
And yet you have plenty of time to shitpost on this board. Really makes ya think.
...
I've listened to a bunch of his lectures and a few of his texts online and I like Shaikh, so I might get to reading that book soon, too.
Why this stupid neologism though? This work is mostly statistical, but that doesn't make him an "empirical Marxist" (Shaikh is actually one of the few "Marxian economists" to properly understand the difference between value in the abstract and price and to say that the former is the original driver of the capitalist mode of production). I wish people would stop inventing new terms almost as if just for the sake of it.
When I say empirical marxist, it is not a reference to epistemology (like, for example, analytical marxism), but rather the heavy emphasis that school of thought places on econometrics / empirical evidence for the LTV. Cockshott, for example seems to be an Althusserian of sorts.
Also leftypol didn't invent this term, pic related.
Is he the best economist around?
ignore shitposting flag
Don't namefag.
4pol has /lit/, which is fairly left-leaning. It's where Stirnerposting started and the home of Holla Forums's original population.
just economics students shilling the book. he's not a "marxist", he says a lot of things "marxists" on this board would not like
unironically, he is IMO the best Marxist Economist in the US, way better than 'celebrity' Marxist economists like Wolff although his work is excellent as well
why, though? srs, why even have a name field on imageboards if not to use it?
good to know, heres a relevant pic
>he's not a "marxist", he says a lot of things "marxists" on this board would not like
???
philistine detected. get out.
It's an archaic leftover.
marxian=/=marxist
explain
IIRC, Marxians want to separate the economic side of Marx's work and leave the political side… well… aside.
Wolff by example, said Marx's method was more interesting than his conclusions…
marxists tend to be anti capitalist, among other things
shaikh just uses some of marx's techniques and accepts some of his theories
shaikh is not explicitly anti capitalist, capitalism isn't an anti capitalist book, it just deconstructs and analyses it rigourously without making judgements
sure, but if someone believes in the LTV and historical materialism idc that much if they aren't 'tankie' in their politics.
Its true that economics schools of thought are not the same as political positions, but certain schools of thought usually lead to certain politics, for example Austrian economics usually leads to libertarian economic positions. Wolff does seem to advocate workers coops, which is sortof socialist
I mean these guys are academics so their contribution is obviously gonna be more academic, saying their 'not marxist' because they are doing economic theorizing and not smoking a cigar with an ak47 in the jungle is pretty silly
Also the most valuable thing about this book and Shaikh's work here is the colossal amount of research and data he went through, objectively and without bias just to help future generations understand what capitalism is.
It's important whatever your political/economic leanings.
isnt this really a 'philosophical' difference though? The critique is kindof implied, any labor theory of value implies exploitation theory. Shaikh is clearly sympathetic to Marx's critique of capitalism, though:
"And as the history of capitalism makes perfectly clear, the whole process is permeated by the struggle between the classes about the conditions, terms and occasionally even about the future, of these relations…
We find here a world of hierarchy and inequality, of orders and obedience, of bosses and subordinates, in which the working class is set to work to produce a certain amount of product for its employers….
Most importantly, a united struggle against these various forms of oppression has truly revolutionary potential."
drive.google.com
I mean, in that article Shaikh seems to be a little more idpolly than most would like, but there's no denying he has Marxist political sympathies
well to paraphrase michael hudson, most wall st bankers are marxists too, in that they openly admit that capitalism is about exploitation.
Well, you have people calling themselves Marxians and not Marxists. Is it a way of hiding their power level or do they have a semantic reason to distinguish themselves from Marxists? I'm not knowledgable enough.
Marxian economics means economic theory derived from marxism, marx also had theories on history and politics obviously, but pretty much all of those 'marxian' economists have left wing political sympathies.
Do they though? aren't most bankers spooked ayn randians/lolberts who think theyre fucking geniuses of the world and anyone who is against inequality is just 'jealous' of their wealth? Not saying you can't be a Marxist and a Banker, for example michael roberts, that economist for the SWP in the UK worked in finance for a while, i don't think most finance or business people know or even care about Marx other than some ridiculous strawman 'muh gorillions' or 'socialism always fails'
I dunno, I guess these days most would admit that there's no romance to it like the ayn randians would have you believe.
It's not about freedom or nature or any of that shit, it's just about making as much out of people as you can and thats the bottom line.
How are his dialectics?
asking for a friend
I've just started watching the lecture on his book on youtube youtube.com
Looks good so far, even if he's not anti-capitalist, he seems to give good arguments against austrians or keynsians.
don't be naive