Is analytical Marxism a real thing that makes sense or no? Is all this continental philosophy and Hegelian stuff really necessary for Marxism? I've tried to actually understand the basics of Hegel's method and dialectics (mainly by reading/listening to AW), and I just don't see why I should care about it or why it's that important.
Other urls found in this thread:
no, analytical marxism rejects the LTV in favor of neoclassical economics and game theory, while the ethics part (cohen etc) is ok, their economic theory is BS
Really? That's fucked. Is the LTV really incompatible with an analytical approach to Marxism?
imo its possible to reject classical marxist dialectics but also also accept the LTV. Its just that during the 1980s when analytical marxism was being invented, the LTV was seen as old fashioned and possibly untrue (this was before the mass of empirical evidence discovered by people like Shaikh was uncovered).
bump for interest coming from an autistic STEM fag. Where should one start with analytic Marxism?
first, kill your wife
Anwar Shaikh has made some pretty good lectures btfoing a lot of neo-classical economic bullshit and some about Marx. I don't know by what criteria is he an "Analytical Marxist", but I think he is a good speaker.
Could you link some of them?
I'm sure Shaikh has given a lot of different lectures and that this user had some specific lecture in mind.
just trying to get some bantz back into /leftypol
Here's a series where he explains his entire book he worked 15 years on. It's long, dry, and at the end you'll know everything.
I've started to say this, and I'll stand by it: 99.99% of Marxists >should< be analytical Marxists and ditch dialectics. You won't lose anything. Not a single important thing.
I also suggest ditching the LTV, it has nothing to add but an unnecessary layer to a theory that doesn't need it. Exploitation happens without the LTV, all the other problems happen without the LTV. You don't need dialectics or the LTV to have a >coherent and rational< theory for communism. When Marxists keep claiming dialectics, they're shooting themselves in the foot because they're trying to say something in Shakespearean chinese when they could have said it in plain and simple modern English.
Dialectics is not for what Marxists think it is, and you should all abandon it unless your aim is to complete Capital as a dialectical development. If your aims are not this, forget it.
It must be shit then, best we avoid it
I agree that the LTV might not be necessary for a "coherent and rational theory for communism", but I still think it's fucking tight. What do?
Realize that it has nothing to do with determining prices. By volume 3 Marx admits that prices of production do not have their immediate anchor in SNLT, but instead in costs of production which tend towards an equalization of a rate of profit, not towards SNLT.
SNLT only appears in the end as a 'long run average price' which in retrospect is the 'gravity point' around which prices flux. This has NO explanatory purpose for prices at all and is merely an unnecessary description.
All that SNLT ultimately really concerns is the aggregate of social labor. Total prices in the economy = total labor. How? Because the aggregate of existing money is the total claims on labor in society. If all money is spent, all possible labor represented by this money is done. Money locks up the very capacity to do labor, and holds back the satisfaction of needs insofar as money cannot flow towards the labors of these needs.
Fuck off AW, the LTV has been empirically vindicated and furthermore doesn't require a deep understanding of dialectics to understand. Labor being embodied in commodities is an intuitive concept for 90% of people. Even though prices aren't directly determined by SNLT in most cases the LTV is still useful in understanding broad tendencies of capitalism in ways that classical theories can't.
Have you heard of Allah? I think he would help you feel better too, and one more piece to explain your life user.
Is the LTV even related to dialectics? The argument for it AFAIK is independent. Like most of what I know of Marx's critique of capitalism, you don't need dialectics to verify/agree with it. That's just how he managed to arrive at the conclusions he did. This whole argument seems to be about historical associations more than argumentation as far as I can tell.
You're retarded. The LTV makes useful predictions even if it a bit of an oversimplification theoretically. Newtonian physics is similarly theoretically inaccurate, but people still use it to do all kinds of useful shit. The literal truth of a theory generally isn't relevant to it's usefulness, brainlet. The LTV is a useful and intuitive theory, which makes it good.
A.W.'s brainlettery is deeper than you say. The purpose of a theory is not to be "true" but to be a useful model. That is, to serve as a framework through which people can make predictions and act so as to get the results they want. Literal truth is not relevant period because it's arguable whether the concept of "truth" is even valid in this sense. The material world is incomprehensible to us in its totality which is why most of our brain's energy is spent taking stimuli and processing them into simplified signals that fit into our internal mental model of the world. The notion of "truth" would require understanding on the part of a mind, but also requires the omission of the simplification that allows our minds to understand anything.
This is basic philosophy of science, but AW wouldn't know about it because he only reads Hegel :^)
Has anyone actually read any Analytical Marxist theory? Pic related is apparently the most important text, but I haven't found a pdf.
Here you go user
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what exactly you mean by Analytical Marxism, but what's the point in being an analyst when newspeak has been dropped in favor of blatant vulgarity? No one needs Franco "Bifo" or Lacan in order to see what's going on in this picture, for instance. What is the mask politicians wear in the age of Berlusconi?
Analytical Marxism is a tendency which articulates Marxism within an Analytical (as opposed to Continental) epistemological framework.
*basically just anglo revisionism*