Non marxist socialist economists

weird question but, is there any recent (1960 - ) academic economists, with a phd and higher level of economic education, who just happen to be commies, and don't approach socialism from a clasical marxian economic perspective?, to be clear i'm talking about leftist theorists that just so happen to use vague, more or less wishy washy economic arguements for socialism, 90% of which they stole from marx himself, i'm talking about people with formal high western economic education, that found capitalist economic theories to be oppresive, and thus decided to theorise about the theoretical specific aspects of a hypothetical socialist macro economy, without adhering to orthodox marxism in itself, but just taking a bit of inspiration from marx, and developing an independent understanding of the economics of socialism, i'm talking about a full blown 3k or something pages manifesto with full on mathematical modelling, and variables and shit, is there anything like that?

Other urls found in this thread:

Thomas Picketty maybe? He isn't a socialist but he demonstrates how wealth inequality is basically irreversible without political intervention. Agrees with Marx on some points but in no way uses a Marxist analysis

There are lots of Sraffian "socialists" you can find.

1) There is no "marxian". There is only Marxist.
Whenever you see "marxian", it means "not Marxist, but pretending to" - which is what you want.

2) Communists by definition are Marxists. Consequently - no. It is an oxymoron.

R. D. Wolff - literally uses Marxist terminology, while actually using completely different definitions of words. Consequently, "marxian".

I have no idea how to determine that.

We don't actually have completely independent ideas. Most of the stuff had been suggested as far back as 19th century (if not earlier) - and repeatedly rehashed under different names. You can literally find refutations of the aforementioned RDWolff in Anti-Duhring, while his theories bear uncanny resemblance to the Technocratic ideas from 30s about managers ruling society.

No. AFAIK it's mostly bullshit.

He never suggested any "socialist society".

what i mean by "non marxian" is economist that don't use the clasical labour theory of value without modifying it, but nonetheless desire a socialist society, i'm talking about someone writting what else would replace the labour theory presented in capital, using more modern understandings of economics


Which theorys? Underconsumptionism?

I don't think you will find any of the following fully satisfying, but here is what I got: Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner, Leontief is useful whether he intended that or not, and more to the left: Albert & Hahnel's Parecon (couldn't make sense of it)

Picketty doesn't propose some model of socialism.

Communism is older than Marx.
dead but an interesting figure.

keynes lmao

these two look like the thing i wanted, now the question is how good are they?, my quick search for opinions of them seems to indicate that they are a meme, is this true?

Some of Sraffas followers.

There's no way to write that much about the economy of a pretty much hypothetical model of society. You'll find a lot more about the analysis of capitalism - for instance, the .pdf attached is a book from an unorthodox (Marxian) economist, huge and with an emphasis on mathematical models as you mention. The preface says it's aimed at a postgraduate audience so it probably assumes you're acquainted with current economic theories, econometrics etc.

Anarcho-communists are not Marxists, yet, are most certainly communists.

lmk when they have any economic theory


I was referring to the "managers are the ones in charge" thing.

Not in the sense we are speaking about. Please read this post:

Is there some basis for this statement?

Hahnel is the economist, Albert is the popularizer. I read them a decade ago or so, so maybe I'm misremembering stuff, but I think they got a weird conception of how to get from the rough to the precise in the steps of their iterated planning procedure. That is, they seemed to assume a very tight correspondence between a sensible categorization of consumer products as satisfying similar needs, and a categorization of parts of the production process. So you want a particular thing, so information about your demand is added into a rough category, and occasionally in the end you won't get exactly the thing you want, but a very similar thing. Or so they believe. So resources and machinery are dedicated to corresponding rough categories, and then we make distinctions within these categories, and distinction within those, and get more precise, that's the idea at least. But for things that serve basically the same purpose for a consumer yet are produced in very different ways, this doesn't work. E. g. tables of basically the same form and size can be made of material using completely different processes. I also don't understand how the planning board is supposed to work with average unit prices of coarse categories without knowing in detail the composition of the pile of goods in a such a category.

t. insane trip poster using the royal we

Anwar Shaikh is your man. He has some lectures on youtube and a big, supposedly revolutionary book reworking all basic economics.

< I'm not going to read anything, I'm always right anyway

He's a Marxist

Piketty is just a keynesian; while his analysis is spot on he opts for a wealth tax instead of distributing the sources of capital…

IIRC Piketty had some stock/flow mix-ups in his analysis and Varoufakis wrote a rather negative review about his book.

< never went to Australia, India, Japan, or UK
Please, proceed here and don't forget to read subsequent posts.