by Summary:
I present four claims about Marx's Capital. I strive for topics more general than, for example, squabbles about the transformation problem. I suggest that some of these claims present a useful focus for reading Marx's book, even if part of your focus is arguing why the claim is wrong. If this were more than a blog post, I would need to cite various Marxists and scholars that inspired me. Short. Not wonkish. Worth thinking about, e.g, relative to "normalizing Marx." Implies Marx was a classical economist more than a separate strain of development, although, owing to its influence politically, Marxism became a separate school. Neoclassical economics was not only a reaction to Marx but also to classical economics. Neoclassical economics was also at attempt to structure economics as an
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Das Kapital, Karl Marx
This could be interesting, too:
I present four claims about Marx's Capital. I strive for topics more general than, for example, squabbles about the transformation problem. I suggest that some of these claims present a useful focus for reading Marx's book, even if part of your focus is arguing why the claim is wrong. If this were more than a blog post, I would need to cite various Marxists and scholars that inspired me. Short. Not wonkish. Worth thinking about, e.g, relative to "normalizing Marx." Implies Marx was a classical economist more than a separate strain of development, although, owing to its influence politically, Marxism became a separate school. Neoclassical economics was not only a reaction to Marx but also to classical economics. Neoclassical economics was also at attempt to structure economics as an
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Das Kapital, Karl Marx
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Alienation And Commodity Fetishism
Robert Vienneau writes Marxian Political Economy As Forward-Looking
Robert Vienneau writes A Letter From Marx To Engels In 1858 Outlining His Critique Of Political Economy
Robert Vienneau writes A History Of Production Processes In Volume 1 Of Capital
I present four claims about Marx's Capital. I strive for topics more general than, for example, squabbles about the transformation problem. I suggest that some of these claims present a useful focus for reading Marx's book, even if part of your focus is arguing why the claim is wrong. If this were more than a blog post, I would need to cite various Marxists and scholars that inspired me.Short. Not wonkish. Worth thinking about, e.g, relative to "normalizing Marx." Implies Marx was a classical economist more than a separate strain of development, although, owing to its influence politically, Marxism became a separate school.
Neoclassical economics was not only a reaction to Marx but also to classical economics. Neoclassical economics was also at attempt to structure economics as an academic discipline, which in had not been theretofore, on the foundation of 19th century "scientism." This stripped out a lot of classical analysis, which just so happened to fit the social, political and economic paradigm of bourgeois liberalism, while giving economics the veneer of "science."