The debt delusion — Michael Roberts [book review]

Michael Roberts reviews and critiques The Debt Delusion by John Weeks.

Michael Roberts Blog — blogging from a marxist economist
The debt delusion
Michael Roberts

Michael Roberts Blog— Understanding socialism

Michael Roberts comments briefly on Richard D. Wolff's two new book, Understanding Marxism and Understanding Socialism.

Probably the salient point: "As Wolff has said: 'If you want to understand an economy, not only from the point of view of people who love it, but also from the point of view of people who are critical and think we can do better, then you need to study Marxian economics as part of any serious attempt to understand what’s going on. Not to do it is to exclude yourself from the critical tradition.'”

I would add, at the very least. Marx and Engels, and subsequent Marxists and those influenced by Marx are still highly relevant and they are becoming more so as capitalism is more and more in crisis owing to neoliberalism, neoliberal globalization and the challenge of climate change. Change is coming.

Michael Roberts Blog — blogging from a marxist economist
Understanding socialism
Michael Roberts

The difficultly with approaching Marx today is twofold. First, he is lightening rod, so most things written are either by proponents or opponents.

Secondly, Marx was a philosopher in his own right and a public intellectual in this time as a journalist and writer of political tracts in the context of the contemporary debates. It would be a mistake to consider him either only from the point of view of economic or even as "an economist."

Marx lived before economics had become a separate academic discipline comparable to the present day. He was a philosopher, social and political activist, political theorist, historian, and one of the founders the disciplines that later became sociology and economics. In fact, when I was grad student in philosophy, I studied the aspects of Marx's contribution other than to economics.

This type of broad thinking falls largely to the philosophers that preceded him. Subsequent to Marx, the fields of knowledge became highly specialized and silos began to form.

Book Review: Marxism and the Philosophy of Science — George Martin Fell Brown

Helena Sheehan’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Science , originally written in 1985, but reprinted at the end of 2017, recounts a wide history of serious Marxist thought on science starting with Marx and Engels themselves, and going up to the mass workers’ movements of the 1930s and 1940s. In keeping with a dialectical conception of science, Marxist ideas aren’t presented as static but evolving through debate and experiment in the face of new scientific and political challenges....

This review gives a brief historical account of how Marxism grew out of the naturalistic assumption of the scientific method that became the dominant world view of the liberal West elite that replaced the traditional theologically based worldview of the great chain of being. However, Marxism departed from the "standard" analysis based on Newtonian mechanism, e.g., followed by neoclassical economics, by including factors not reducible to assumptions resembling, imitating actually, the natural sciences — physics and chemistry.

Materialist ideas in science predate Marx and Engels by quite a bit, with forms of materialism going as far back as ancient Greece and being a significant part of the philosophy of the enlightenment in the eighteenth century. But the application of materialist methods for understanding the internal workings of society was a revolutionary contribution in more ways than one. Not only did it point to direct social and political revolution, it pointed to a different understanding of materialism itself. The materialism of the enlightenment philosophers was a highly mechanical conception, reducing nature and society to fixed objects either existing in stasis or confined to simple motion. The materialist conception of history put forward by Marx and Engels didn’t adhere to that approach.

In hindsight, nineteen century thought was influenced chiefly by Darwin in life science, Freud in psychology, Nietzsche in philosophy and Marx in economics, sociology and political theory (which were just emerging fields in his day). I make this claim from the point of view of their subsequent influence, both derivative and reactive. I know this is a provocative claim but defending it is beyond the scope of this comment. Think about it.

This is not to say that the great scientists working in physics and chemistry were also not key in contributing the 20th century dominant worldview in the West. Conventional economics tended to hew to this trend, while many heterodox thinkers branched out to include other rising influences.

Marx and Engles, Marxism as a tradition that follows them, and Marxianism as a tradition that is influence by them constitute an important strain in Western intellectual history. This review is interesting as an exploration of this.

Incidentally, I think this is exaggerated.

This [the dialectical method] was Hegel’s approach, but Hegel saw these contradictions and transformations as taking place only within the world of ideas. From Marx and Engels’ materialist perspective, these contradictions and transformations are part of nature itself.

I think that "only" is too strong. It is reading Hegel chiefly from the point of view of the Logic. Hegel's point was that nature is rational. He tried to account for this. Virtually all scientists agree that nature is rational in the sense that causal explanation in natural science is cannily mathematical. There is no way for science to account for this in terms of the assumptions of its model. It is just assumed to be the case. This conundrum goes back at least to the Greeks, who struggled with it, and were somewhat freaked out by the existence of irrational numbers that figured in scientific (to them) explanation.

On the other hand, Hegel was largely a traditionalist whereas Marx was a materialist. They are both contributors to German liberalism, which is different from Anglo-American liberalism. Contemporary economics is chiefly Anglo-American, and even most heterodox economists are working from within this worldview and its ideology. They agree pretty much on the worldview, with American capitalism at its foundation, but differ on ideology.

Another contribution Sheehan makes is recognizing the position of Engels in Marxism as not merely a contributor or even just a collaborator. Engels was an important thinker in this strain of thought being birthed, although he is now greatly overshadowed by Marx in recognition and reputation. He was a first-class thinker and researcher.

Sheehan discusses three key works of Engels on the question: Anti-Dühring, The Dialectics of Nature, and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. The first of these was a polemic against Eugen Dühring, a briefly popular figure in the socialist movement, who put forward a crudely mechanical and schematic approach to science and politics. The Dialectics of Nature was an unfinished work, inspired by Marx’s own desire to write a work salvaging what was rational in Hegel’s thought. And Ludwig Feuerbach was a historical account of the philosophical road leading from Hegel to Marx.

In these works Engels grappled with a number of scientific questions of his day, from a dialectical perspective. He pointed to a number of the laws of development Hegel had put forward, such as the transformation of quantity into quality, and pointed out how they arise in nature and not simply in thought, as Hegel had put forward. He looked into how social conditions shaped scientific discovery....

Sheehan adds an interesting tidbit.

Ironically, when Stalin waged his war on genetics, he was actually putting forward the very neo-Lamarckian ideas Engels polemicized against [in Anti-Dühring: The Dialectics of Nature].

Warning: Longish.

Socialist Alternative
Book Review: Marxism and the Philosophy of Science
George Martin Fell Brown

Magpie — Getting all Tied Up (4)

Mag[ie continues to fisk Paul Mason on Marxism and MMT.

Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare
Getting all Tied Up (4)

Magpie

Antony P. Mueller — The Neo-Marxist Roots of Modern Monetary Theory

The post is interesting from the POV of history of economics. Antony P. Mueller points out how MMT owes more to Kalecki than to Keynes. His criticism of MMT goes astray in assuming the conventional economic view of debt-financed fiscal deficits crowding out private sector productive investment. MMT shows how this assumption is erroneous in that the net spending after taxes injects the exact amount of bond issuance in offset. It's the spending that funds Treasury security issuance. 

In central bank auctions of  government bonds the primary dealers act as the designated market makers, and their purchases drain the reserve add that was created by deficit spending from bank reserve balances at the Fed into security accounts at the Fed, much the same as deposit accounts in banks are drained into CD's. The total amount of the reserve add is used to settle the auction, draining the mnetary base of the reserves in injected by the deficit spending. All that changes is the maturity. MZM (money of zero maturity) becomes money of non-zero maturity.

There is no crowding out of private investment. The assumption that bond sales are funded by a stock of loanable funds for which government competes with the private sector is wrong. That is not the why the existing system works.

Nevertheless, the post is still a worthwhile read from the POV of history of economics, although one should not assume that the summary of Keyes, Kalecki and their use by MMT economics is entirely correct, for example, whether Kalecki held a labor theory of value is controversial.

Mises Wire
The Neo-Marxist Roots of Modern Monetary Theory

Antony P. Mueller

Magpie — Parallel Lives

Personally, I’d recommend Marxists to pay MMT closer attention. It has plenty to teach us.

I would say the same to MMTers.

Marxism is about emancipation of workers from wage-slavery, which Marx analyzes in terms of capitalism as concentrated private ownership of the means of production being based on rent seeking and rent extract. This is free riding on the system and is parasitical. 

Under capitalism, workers are in a position similar to serfs and peasants under feudalism and the dominance of land lords, regardless of being "better off." They are still putting in unpaid work time and have little chance to escape the system in aggregate. The Horatio Alger stories obscure the truth.

Peter Cooper (www.heteconomist.comhttp://heteconomist.com) is probably the best reference on MMT and Marxism.  Michael Hudson (https://michael-hudson.com/) is also a good source, although he is not always in paradigm with MMT.

Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare
Parallel Lives

Magpie

See also

Jacobin

Eight Marxist Claims That May Surprise You

Mitchell Aboulafia | Professor of Philosophy at Manhattan College

Peter May — A communist manifesto for money?

I am reposting the article below by Wally Mooney (with permission) which was an indirect reply to Paul Mason’s recent article.

I thought it was a very lucid and well-argued piece on why Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)’s conclusions as to how money is created is factually correct and that is the case whether you are a Marxist or a Capitalist or somewhere in between. For me it also illuminated Marxist ideas (with which I have to imagine, Paul Mason presumably agrees).

Must-read, IMHO.

Wally Mooney has this essentially right.

Opponents rightly fear the job guarantee as a step in this direction through increasing labor bargaining power by termination the buffer stock of unemployed that the ownership and managerial class uses to "discipline" workers and the central banks employs to control inflation using NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment).

Aside: Peter may writes: "I was rather surprised that there was so much to agree with here – yes there are a few controversial and, for me, dubious ideas such as 'there can be no capitalist system without money' which I’d suggest should be: no proper economy without money…."

While there may not be a proper economy without money, isn't arguing that. Marx is saying that money — a monetary production economy — is the basis for capitalism since capitalists use money to produce goods for sale for more money — investment is for return, that is, profit. The profit comes from the wage being less than the market price of commodities produced by wage labor. The end-in-view is not to provide a rationale for abolishing money but rather for terminating the extraction of economic rent in the form of "surplus value," profit accruing from unpaid labor time. 

Unpaid work is a form of slavery. The argument that workers agree to it is bogus, since in a monetary economy in which goods are rationed by ability to pay for them, income from a job is necessary for those without other income or assets, which is most workers. So there is no choice but to accept a job offer in which the work is at a disadvantage.

See Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Part II: The Transformation of Money into Capital, Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital.

This is similar feudal land lords extracting economic rent from agricultural. Capitalism is a continuation of feudalism in another guise, with the factory being substituted for the manor and the capitalist standing in for the land lord.

Progressive Pulse
A communist manifesto for money?
Peter May

Peter Cooper — MMT and Capitalism from a Marxist Standpoint

A perennial question for Marxists is how to overturn capitalism. Will institutional changes that improve the lot of workers but fall short of ending capitalism immediately help or harm this cause? To the extent that social struggle is a learning-by-doing process, it may be that the securing of small gains can whet the appetite for more significant gains and that institutional reforms of a transformational nature can place revolution on a more secure footing if and when it does occur. But there is also the possibility of complacency in which workers come to tolerate capitalism so long as their own situation is not so dire.

The increasing prominence of modern monetary theory (MMT) has once again brought the perennial question to the forefront for some socialists. Is knowledge of MMT going to make it easier to extend the life of capitalism? What should a Marxist make of the theory?

In my view, there are several aspects to consider:

• the correctness of MMT;
• the broad analytical applicability of MMT;
• the implications of MMT for capitalism....

heteconomist
MMT and Capitalism from a Marxist Standpoint
Peter Cooper

Michael Roberts — Modern monetary theory – part 1: Chartalism and Marx

Modern monetary theory (MMT) has become flavour of the time among many leftist economic views in recent years. The new left-wing Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is apparently a supporter; and a leading MMT exponent recently discussed the theory and its policy implications with UK Labour’s left-wing economics and finance leader, John McDonnell.

MMT has some traction in the left as it appears to offer theoretical support for policies of fiscal spending funded by central bank money and running up budget deficits and public debt without fear of crises – and thus backing policies of government spending on infrastructure projects, job creation and industry in direct contrast to neoliberal mainstream policies of austerity and minimal government intervention.

So, in this post and in other posts to follow, I shall offer my view on the worth of MMT and its policy implications for the labour movement. First, I’ll try and give broad outline to bring out the similarities and difference with Marx’s monetary theory....

Can the Chartalist/Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Marxist theory of money be made compatible or complementary or is one of them wrong? My short answers would be: 1) money predates capitalism but not because of the state; 2) yes, the state can create money but it does not control its price. So confidence in its money can disappear; and 3) a strict Chartalist position is not compatible with Marxist money theory, but MMT has complementary features.

Let me now try to expand those arguments....

If you are already interested in MMT and Marx, this is obviously a should read. But if you are just getting interested, I can recommend London based Marxist economist Michael Roberts as a good entry point. He works in finance, so "money" is his thing. However, one also needs to be aware that there are different interpretations of what Marx actually said and that no one speaks for Marx. Be aware that Michael Roberts is not an expert in MMT. For an economist that is deeply familiar with both MMT and Marx, and sympathetic to both, see the work of Peter Cooper at heteconomist.com. If you are seriously interested in MMT and Marx, Peter is the go-to guy in my view.

Michael Roberts Blog
Modern monetary theory – part 1: Chartalism and Marx
Michael Roberts

Richard D. Wolff — The Narrowness of Mainstream Economics Is About to Unravel

Recent extreme volatility and sharp drops in US stock markets underscore the instability of capitalism yet again. As many commentators now note, another economic downturn looms. We know that all the reforms and regulations imposed in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s failed to prevent both smaller downturns between 1941 and 2008 and then another big crash in 2008. Capitalism’s instability has, for centuries, resisted all efforts to overcome it with or without government interventions. Yet mainstream economics mostly evades an honest confrontation with the social costs of such economic instability. Worse, it evades a direct debate with the Marxian critique that links those costs to an argument that system change would be the best and most “efficient” solution....

Truthout
The Narrowness of Mainstream Economics Is About to Unravel

Richard D. Wolff | professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City

Frigga Haug — Thirteen Theses of Marxism-Feminism

Didn't know that Marx was a feminist? Then you don't know about his wife, Jenny von Westphalen Marx. She was an aristocrat become social and political activist. Jacobin has the story of her life.

... we are in union with Marx, “to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, forsaken, despicable being”....

The German term Marx uses that is translated "man" here is Menschen. While it is correct to translate Menschen as "man" in the generic, non-gender specific sense, the German term means "human being" without specifying gender.

These are hardly "radical" proposals, as sopme would like picture all feminists, Marxist and otherwise.

They also indicate that Marx was very much a libertarian* and anarchist* who was concerned with gender issues as well as class issues as sociological phenomena that need to be addressed by political activists. Marx himself was only peripherally an economist. He was a philosopher that would have become an academic if times had been different, a free-lance journalist by profession, an independent thinker, and a political activist that was also married to a political activist.

* Of course, Marx was not a Libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) in the American sense.

International Marxist-Feminist Conference
Thirteen Theses of Marxism-Feminism
Frigga Haug, sociologist

See also

The Real Movement
It would be interesting to know what the average Marxist makes of this statement by Nick Land
Jehu

See also

Progress in Political Economy
Towards a queer Marxism

Bret Heino

Merijn Knibbe — Thomas Sargent discovered his inner Marxist. Really. Two graphs.

The ‘Matching functions’ mentioined in the quote explain unemployment by assuming that finding a job or a worker takes time. And this does explain unemployment – part of it (2%-point?). The rest must be explained by crises and the inability of the market system to create jobs. As is clear from comparing graph 2, short-lived crises cause lower levels of job creation and higher levels of job destruction. Basically, these swings are not even that large. But together they lead to a fast increase in unemployment which take years to overcome. Sargent and Ljundqvist did re-invent the wheel. If they had red Rodbertus, Sismondi, Marx, Owen or Mitchell they would have known.

Fun fact: the neoclassical ‘DSGE’ model of Bokan e.a. distinguishes a class of bankers, a class of entrepreneurs (let’s call them ‘capitalists’, as they own all the capital) and a class of households which have nothing else to sell than their labour… The model knows a ‘positive wage mark-up’ but change this into a ‘wage mark down’ (for instance caused by ‘monpsonie’ on the labor market, i.e. by strong labor market power of employers, and it’s starting to look pretty Marxist, too.

Real-World Economics Review Blog
Thomas Sargent discovered his inner Marxist. Really. Two graphs.
Merijn Knibbe

Sam Williams — Modern Money (Pt 2)

Part 1 is here if you missed it when linked to here at MNE when it came out.

The post begins with an analysis of geopolitics that is quite good. Its' a long piece and this is the most section that is most relevant to current events.

Williams sets up a hypothetical scenario to examine the relevance of MMT to the issue has he has constructed it, which I think is a "good move." The future is uncertain, of course, so it makes sense to address a hypothetical case that seems to be necessitated by the flow of the historical dialectic from the perspective of class dynamism. From the Marxists perspective  the "class struggle" is chiefly between capitalists (owners of capital and those that command capital) and ordinary workers, both production workers and lower level managers, and with socialized labor and globalization, this is an international phenomenon. However, the driver the dialectic on a day-by-day basis is the struggle among factions of the elite that comprise elites with opposing interests, some of which are mutually exclusive, ruling out compromise.

The William introduces into the scenario he has erected an analysis of Chartalism and critique of MMT.

Williams then compares the MMT theory of money with the Marxist. For MMT proponents, it is worth reading to get a Marxist view and a summary of the Marxist theory of money.

Finally, Williams engages in the beginnings of a critique of MMT as a lead into future parts of this series. To his credit, Williams has undertaken more than a superficial study of MMT, which he regards as the only credible alternative to a Marxist view.

Modern Monetary Theory in a nutshell holds that anything the central government accepts for payment of taxes is money. MMT has the merit of being the most coherent and consistent alternative to Marx’s theory of money. Indeed, in terms of a coherent and logical theory of money, there are really only two, Modern Monetary Theory, on one side, and the theory of money developed by Marx as part of his theory of (labor) value, on the other. All other theories of money, whether advanced by mainstream bourgeois economists or Marxists who believe we are living in an era of “non-commodity money,” are simply eclectic mixes of the two fundamental theories of money....

A Critique of Crisis Theory From a Marxist Perspective

Modern Money (Pt 2)
Sam Williams

Chris Dillow — Capitalism as a fetter

...there is, if you like, a third way between utopian communism on the one hand and technocratic tweaks on the other.

It begins from the idea that ten years of stagnant productivity might mean we are now at the phase of capitalism that Marx foresaw:

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.

 Stumbling and Mumbling
Capitalism as a fetterChris Dillow | Investors Chronicle

Elaine Graham-Leigh — Marxism and Human Nature

Weekend reading.

This post presents the Marxist position on human nature as socially embedded and historically determined in contrast to the the natural law position of classical liberalism that is based on individualism.

Longish, but clearly written and informative.

Counterfire
Marxism and Human Nature

Elaine Graham-Leigh

Sam Williams — Modern Money

MMT economists advocate that the central government – the federal government in the U.S. – can and should employ every person who desires to work but cannot find work in the private sector at a living wage. This living wage, the MMT supporters point out, would function as a minimum wage, since no person would work for a private employer who offers a wage lower than the wage the government offers. Assuming such a reform could be implemented under the capitalist system, if your search for private employment comes up empty you would simply go to the nearest government employment office and choose among useful governments jobs. All these jobs would pay you a wage adequate to meet your basic needs for food, housing, education and so on.

If you desired more, as the supporters of MMT assume would be the case for most people, you would seek employment in the private sector. If you didn’t find it, you would still have your government job. Such a reform if it could be won under the capitalist system would be highly desirable, to say the least, from the viewpoint of the working class.

It is important to realize that the supporters of MMT do not see such a demand as part of a transitional program pointing towards a socialist society. Marxists have long raised this demand but see it not as a reform within capitalism but as way of building a movement that would establish a workers’ government that along with other profound changes would transform capitalism into socialism.

Marxists will in the years ahead engage in united-front movements and actions demanding that the government provide jobs for everybody who needs one at union scale wages – while MMT supporters are satisfied with a living wage. The difference between the Marxist and MMT perspectives on the demand that government act as the employer of last resort will be explored in coming posts.

Next month, I will examine Modern Money Theory in depth and contrast it to the Marxist theory of money.

A Critique of Crisis Theory
Modern Money
Sam Williams

Michael Roberts — China workshop: challenging the misconceptions

Indeed, the real issue ahead is the battle for trade and investment globally between China and the US. The US is out to curb and control China’s ability to expand domestically and globally as an economic power. At the workshop, Jude Woodward, author of The US vs China: Asia’s new cold war?, outlined the desperate measures that the US is taking to try to isolate China, block its economic progress and surround it militarily. But this policy is failing. Trump may have launched his tariff hikes, but what really worries the Americans is China’s progress in technology. China, under Xi, aims not just to be the manufacturing centre of the global economy but also to take a lead in innovation and technology that will rival that of the US and other advanced capitalist economies within a generation.

China's options.

There was a theoretical debate at the workshop about whether China was heading towards capitalism (if not already there) or towards socialism (in a gradual way). Marx’s view of socialism and communism was cited (from Marx’s famous Critique of Gotha Programme) with different interpretations. For me, I reckon Marx’s view of socialism and/or communism starts from two realistic premises; 1) that communism as a society of super-abundance where toil, exploitation and class struggle have been eliminated to free the individual, is technically possible now – especially with the 21st technology of AI, robots, internet etc; and 2) socialism and/or any transition to communism cannot even start until the capitalist mode of production is no longer dominant globally and instead workers’ power and planned democratically-run (not dictatorships) economies dominate. That means China on its own cannot move (even gradually) to socialism (even as the first stage towards communism) unless the dominant power of imperialism is ended in the so-called West. Remember China may be the second-largest economy in the world in dollar terms but its labour productivity is less than one-third of the US.

In my view, Michael Roberts gets both of these issues right and together they from the basis of the geopolitical dynamic that is driving geopolitics at this stage of the great game.

His conclusion.

There is a (permanent) struggle going on within the political elite in China over which way to go – towards the Western capitalist model; or to sustain “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. After the experience of the Great Recession and the ensuing Long Depression in the West, the pro-capitalist factions have been partially discredited for now. President for Life Xi now looks to promote ‘Marxism’ and says state control (through party control) is here to stay. But the only real way to guarantee China’s progress, to reduce the growing inequalities and to avoid the risk of a swing to capitalism in the future will be to establish working class control over Chinese political and economic institutions and adopt an internationalist policy a la Marx. That is something that Xi and the current political elite will not do.

Time will tell.

China faces a dilemma. It needs the capitalist means of production to grow commensurably with capitalist countries and capitalism entails imperialism (think China's BRI). But for a peaceful transition to socialism when capitalism runs its course, China has to moderate its level of capitalism, while maintaining a balancing level of socialism. This is the aim of socialism with Chinese characteristics as it stands, and one can expect a flexible approach in the face of change.

A fundamental 19th century point of Marx & Engels is that societies are complex adaptive systems subject to reflexivity and emergence, which implies that economies are dynamic and subject to the historical dialectic. This stands in contrast to to the 18th century bourgeois liberalism based on static "natural law" that Marx criticized but which is held as convention in the West. So it is more likely that the Chinese leadership can be more agile and adaptive than Western leaders. Whether they will be able to rise to the occasion is another question. Moreover, there is a strong possibility that if Western leaders perceive that the West is falling behind, they will initiate war (think Thucydides trap).

Michael Roberts Blog
China workshop: challenging the misconceptions
Michael Roberts

See also

China: three models of development

David F. Ruccio — Marx ratio

First there was the Great Gatsby curve. Then there was the Proust index. Now, thanks to Neil Irwin, we have the Marx ratio.

Each, in their different way, attempts to capture the ravages of contemporary capitalism. But the Marx ratio is a bit different. It was published in the New York Times. Its aim is to capture one of the underlying determinants of the obscene levels of inequality in the United States today—not class mobility or the number of years of national income growth lost to the global financial crash. And, of course, it takes its name from that ruthless nineteenth-century critic of mainstream economics and capitalism itself....

Occasional Links & Commentary
Marx ratio
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

See also

Putting aside this rich line-up of events, what has caught our attention is the equal proliferation of pieces celebrating Marx’s birthday, for the better or for the worse. From misleading and derogatory articles such as the Rulers of the world: read Karl Marx! published by The Economist to educational short pieces such as Cooper’s It’s time to normalize Karl Marx, it is difficult to not wonder about the reasons behind such opposing views. Similarly, it is difficult to resist the temptation to add a little contribution to the debate. So here we are.…

Developing Economics
Marx’s Birthday and the Dismal Science: A Few Observations

Carolina Alves and Ingrid H. Kvangraven

More Marx, socialism, and ecology

MR Online
Marx and Metabolism: lost in translation?

Ian Angus | editor of Climate and Capitalism

MR Online
On the eve of Venezuela’s elections, the U.S. empire isn’t sitting idly by

Editorial

MR Online
Ten Marxist ideas that define the 21st century
Sergio Alejandro Gómez

Econospeak
The So-called Labour Fund

Sandwichman

Radical Political Economy

Capitalism and the Expropriation of Nature: The Strategic Discourse of Ecosocialism

John Bellamy Foster

Naked Capitalism

To Reform Capitalism, Look to Marx

Frank Block | Research Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Davis

Yet more on Marx

Econospeak

Everything You Would Learn about Marxism If You Were Subjected to Two of My Lectures

Peter Dorman | Professor of Political Economy, The Evergreen State College

Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare

Unfrequently Asked Questions: Marx and Marxism (i)

Magpie

International Socialist Review
Marx and Engels...and Darwin? The essential connection between historical materialism and natural selection

Ian Angus

MROnline
Karl Marx: India’s freedom struggle too was influenced by Marxism

Editors