Marxian economics

Not to be confused withMarxism.

Marxian economics,or theMarxian school of economics,is aheterodoxschool of political economic thought. Its foundations can be traced back toKarl Marx'scritique of political economy.However, unlikecritics of political economy,Marxian economists tend to accept the concept ofthe economyprima facie.Marxian economics comprises several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought, which are sometimes opposed to each other; in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement, or to supplement, other economic approaches.Because one does not necessarily have to be politicallyMarxistto be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist inusage,rather than beingsynonymous:They share asemantic field,while also allowing bothconnotativeanddenotativedifferences. An example of this can be found in the works of Soviet economists likeLev Gatovsky,who sought to apply Marxist economic theory to the objectives, needs, and political conditions of the socialist construction in the Soviet Union, contributing to the development of SovietPolitical Economy.

Marxian economics concerns itself variously with the analysis ofcrisisincapitalism,the role and distribution of thesurplus productandsurplus valuein various types ofeconomic systems,the nature and origin ofeconomic value,the impact of class and class struggle on economic and political processes, and the process ofeconomic evolution.

Marxian economics—particularly in academia—is distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology, as well as from thenormativeaspects of Marxist thought: this reflects the view that Marx's original approach to understanding economics and economic development is intellectually independent from his own advocacy ofrevolutionary socialism.Marxian economists do not lean entirely upon the works of Marx and other widely known Marxists, but draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources.

Considered aheterodoxschool, the Marxian school has been criticized by claims relating to inconsistency, failed predictions, and scrutiny of nominallycommunistcountries'economic planningin the 20th century. According to economists such asGeorge StiglerandRobert Solow,Marxist economics are not relevant to modern economics, having "virtually no impact"and only "represent[ing] a small minority of modern economists".However, some ideas of the Marxian school have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy. Certain concepts developed in Marxian economics, especially those related tocapital accumulationand thebusiness cycle,have been fitted for use in capitalist systems; one such example isJoseph Schumpeter's notion ofcreative destruction.

Marx's magnum opus oncritique of political economywasDas Kapital(Capital: A Critique of Political Economy) in three volumes, of which only the first volume was published in his lifetime (1867); the others were published by Friedrich Engels from Marx's notes. One of Marx's early works,Critique of Political Economy,was mostly incorporated intoDas Kapital,especially the beginning of volume 1. Marx's notes made in preparation for writingDas Kapitalwere published in 1939 under the titleGrundrisse.

Marx's critique of classical economics

Marx'scritique of political economytook as its starting point the work of the best-known economists of his day, the British moral philosopher turned economistAdam Smithas well asDavid Ricardo.

InThe Wealth of Nations(1776), Smith argued that the most important characteristic of a market economy was that it permitted a rapid growth in productive abilities. Smith claimed that a growing market stimulated a greater "division of labor"(i.e. specialization of businesses and/or workers) and in turn this led to greater productivity. Although Smith generally said little about laborers, he did note that an increased division of labor could at some point cause harm to those whose jobs became narrower and narrower as the division of labor expanded. Smith maintained that alaissez-faireeconomy would naturally correct itself over time.

Marx followed Smith by claiming that the most important beneficial economic consequence of capitalism was a rapid growth in productivity abilities. Marx also expanded greatly on the notion that laborers could come to harm as capitalism became more productive. Additionally, Marx noted inTheories of Surplus Value:"We see the great advance made by Adam Smith beyond thePhysiocratsin the analysis of surplus-value and hence of capital. In their view, it is only one definite kind of concrete labour—agricultural labour—that creates surplus-value... But to Adam Smith, it is general social labour — no matter in what use-values it manifests itself — the mere quantity of necessary labour, which creates value. Surplus-value, whether it takes the form of profit, rent, or the secondary form of interest, is nothing but a part of this labour, appropriated by the owners of the material conditions of labour in the exchange with living labour ".

Malthus' claim inAn Essay on the Principle of Population(1798) that population growth was the primary cause of subsistence level wages for laborers provoked Marx to develop an alternative theory of wage determination. Whereas Malthus presented a historical theory of population growth, Marx offered a theory of how a relative surplus population in capitalism tended to push wages to subsistence levels. Marx saw this relative surplus population as coming from economic causes and not from biological causes (as in Malthus). This economic-based theory of surplus population is often labeled as Marx's theory of thereserve army of labour.

Ricardo developed a theory of distribution within capitalism—that is, a theory of how the output of society is distributed to classes within society. The most mature version of this theory, presented inOn the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation(1817), was based on alabour theory of valuein which the value of any produced object is equal to the labor embodied in the object and Smith too presented a labor theory of value, but it was only incompletely realized. Also notable in Ricardo's economic theory was that profit was a deduction from society's output and that wages and profit were inversely related:an increase in profit came at the expense of a reduction in wages. Marx built much of the formal economic analysis found inCapitalon Ricardo's theory of the economy.

Marx also criticized two features of "bourgeois economy" he perceived as main factors preventing full realization of society's production power: ownership of the means of production, and allegedly irrational operation of the economy, which leads to "disturbances" and surplus:

When society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force.

— Friedrich Engels,Anti-Dühring

Marx's critique of political economy according to Marxist economists

According to some, Marx employed alabour theory of value,which holds that the value of a commodity is thesocially necessary labour timeinvested in it. In this model,capitalistsdo not payworkersthe full value of the commodities they produce; rather, they compensate the worker for the necessary labor only (the worker's wage, which cover only the necessary means of subsistence in order to maintain him working in the present and his family in the future as a group). This necessary labor is necessarily only a fraction of a full working day – the rest, surplus-labor, would be pocketed by the capitalist as profit.

Marx theorized that the gap between the value a worker produces and his wage is a form of unpaid labour, known assurplus value.Moreover, Marx argues that markets tend to obscure the social relationships and processes of production; he called thiscommodity fetishism.People are highly aware of commodities, and usually don't think about the relationships and labor they represent.

Marx's analysis leads to the consideration of economic crisis. "A propensity to crisis—what we would callbusiness cycles—was not recognised as an inherent feature of capitalism by any other economist of Marx's time, "observedRobert HeilbronerinThe Worldly Philosophers,"although future events have certainly indicated his prediction of successive boom and crash."Marx's theory of economic cycles was formalised byRichard Goodwinin "A Growth Cycle" (1967),a paper published during the centenary year ofCapital, Volume I.

To resolve the bourgeois contradiction between the ownership of the means of production and the "social act" of production itself, Marx proposed socialization of the means of production. To remove the "disturbances" of capitalist economy, Marx postulated "rational management" of the economy, which would replace the "chaotic" market forces driven by a "sum of individual preferences":

If we conceive society as being not capitalistic but communistic the question then comes down to the need of society to calculate beforehand how much labour, means of production, and means of subsistence it can invest, without detriment, in such lines of business as for instance the building of railways, which do not furnish any means of production or subsistence, nor produce any useful effect for a long time, a year or more, where they extract labour, means of production and means of subsistence from the total annual production.

— Karl Marx,Capital,Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1957, pp. 314–315

Methodology

Marx useddialectics,a method that he adapted from the works ofGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.Dialectics focuses on relation and change, and tries to avoid seeing the universe as composed of separate objects, each with essentially stable unchanging characteristics. One component of dialectics isabstraction;out of an undifferentiated mass of data or system conceived of as an organic whole, one abstracts portions to think about or to refer to. One may abstract objects, but also—and more typically—relations, and processes of change. An abstraction may be extensive or narrow, may focus on generalities or specifics, and may be made from various points of view. For example, a sale may be abstracted from a buyer's or a seller's point of view, and one may abstract a particular sale or sales in general. Another component is the dialectical deduction of categories. Marx uses Hegel's notion ofcategories,which areforms,for economics: The commodityform,the moneyform,the capitalformetc. have to be systematically deduced instead of being grasped in an outward way as done by the bourgeois economists. This corresponds to Hegel's critique of Kant's transcendental philosophy.

Marx regardedhistoryas having passed through several stages. The details of his periodisation vary somewhat through his works, but it essentially is:Primitive Communism–Slavesocieties –Feudalism–Capitalism–Socialism–Communism(capitalism being the present stage and communism the future). Marx occupied himself primarily with describing capitalism. Historians place the beginning of capitalism some time between about 1450 (Sombart) and some time in the 17th century (Hobsbawm).

Marx defines acommodityas a product of human labour that is produced for sale in a market, and many products of human labour are commodities. Marx began his major work on economics,Capital,with a discussion of commodities; Chapter One is called "Commodities".

Commodities

"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalistmode of productionprevails, presents itself as 'an immense accumulation of commodities,' its unit being a single commodity. "(First sentence ofCapital,Volume I.)

"The common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities whenever they are exchanged, is their value." (Capital,I, Chap I, section 1.)

The worth of a commodity can be conceived of in two different ways, which Marx calls use-value and value. A commodity's use-value is its usefulness for fulfilling some practical purpose; for example, the use-value of a piece of food is that it provides nourishment and pleasurable taste; the use value of a hammer, that it can drive nails.

Value is, on the other hand, a measure of a commodity's worth in comparison to other commodities. It is closely related toexchange-value,the ratio at which commodities should be traded for one another, but not identical: value is at a more general level of abstraction; exchange-value is a realisation or form of it.

Marx argued that if value is a property common to all commodities, then whatever it is derived from, whatever determines it, must be common to all commodities. The only relevant thing that is, in Marx's view, common to all commodities is human labour: they are all produced by human labour.

Marx concluded that the value of a commodity is simply the amount of human labour required to produce it. Thus Marx adopted a labour theory of value, as had his predecessors Ricardo and MacCulloch; Marx himself traced the existence of the theory at least as far back as an anonymous work,Some Thoughts on the Interest of Money in General, and Particularly the Publick Funds, &c.,published in London around 1739 or 1740.

Marx placed some restrictions on the validity of his value theory: he said that in order for it to hold, the commodity must not be a useless item; and it is not the actual amount of labour that went into producing a particular individual commodity that determines its value, but the amount of labour that a worker of average energy and ability, working with average intensity, using the prevailing techniques of the day, would need to produce it. A formal statement of the law is: the value of a commodity is equal to the average socially necessary labour time required for its production. (Capital, I, Chap I – p. 39 in Progress Publishers, Moscow, ed'n.)

Marx's contention was that commodities tend, at a fairly general level of abstraction, to exchange at value; that is, if Commodity A, whose value is "V", is traded for Commodity B, it will tend to fetch an amount of Commodity B whose value is the same, "V". Particular circumstances will cause divergence from this rule, however.

Money

Marx held that metallic money, such as gold, is a commodity, and its value is the labour time necessary to produce it (mine it, smelt it, etc.). Marx argued that gold and silver are conventionally used as money because they embody a large amount of labour in a small, durable, form, which is convenient. Paper money is, in this model, a representation of gold or silver, almost without value of its own but held in circulation bystate decree.

"Paper money is a token representing gold or money." (Capital,I, Chap III, section 2, part c.)

Production

Marx lists the elementary factors of production as:

1. Labour, "the personal activity of man." (Capital, I, VII, 1.)
2. The subject of labour: the thing worked on.
3. Theinstruments of labour:tools, labouring domestic animals like horses, chemicals used in modifying the subject, etc.

Some subjects of labour are available directly fromNature:uncaught fish, unmined coal, etc. Others are results of a previous stage of production; these are known asraw materials,such as flour or yarn. Workshops, canals, and roads are considered instruments of labour. (Capital,I, VII, 1.) Coal for boilers, oil for wheels, and hay for draft horses are considered raw materials, not instruments of labour.

"If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw material...." (Capital,I, Chap VII, section 1.)

The subjects of labour and instruments of labour together are called themeans of production.Relations of productionare the relations human beings adopt toward each other as part of the production process. In capitalism,wage labourandprivate propertyare part of the system of relations of production.

Calculation of value of a product (price not to be confused with value):

If labour is performed directly on Nature and with instruments of negligible value, the value of the product is simply the labour time. If labour is performed on something that is itself the product of previous labour (that is, on a raw material), using instruments that have some value, the value of the product is the value of the raw material, plus depreciation on the instruments, plus the labour time. Depreciation may be figured simply by dividing the value of the instruments by their working life;e.g.if a lathe worth £1,000 lasts in use 10 years it imparts value to the product at a rate of £100 per year.

$value=mp+lt$,	Where:	$value$	is the value of the product;
		$mp$	is the value of the means of production;
		$lt$	is the labour time.

Labor theory of value

Thelabour theory of valuewas initially introduced by the classical economistsAdam SmithandDavid Ricardo,but was further developed in Marx's workCapital.According to thelabour theory of value,the value of a commodity equals the socially necessary labour time required to produce it.

The value of commodities is divided into two categories:use-valueandexchange-value.Use-valueis the usefulness of a commodity. Exchange-value is the proportion by which use-values of one kind are exchanged for use-values of other kinds. However, since the exchange-values are not arbitrary, there must be a common unit by which the goods can be equated. When the unique use-values of the goods are removed, the only value left is the labour time necessary to produce the commodity.

Abstract labor

Marx's theory of value differs from the classical view in his definition of labor. Marx separates it into two different types: concrete andabstract labor.Concrete labor can be thought of as the unique characteristics of labor such as the work of a farmer versus a tailor. Abstract labor, on the other hand, is the general conceptualization of human labor.It represents the expenditure of simple human labor power.Concrete labor produces qualitatively different commodities; however, in order to equalize and compare the values of qualitatively different commodities quantitatively, their value must be measured in terms of abstract labor.Abstract labor is the basic unit of value and is basis for Marx's labor theory of value.

Surplus value

According to Marx, in capitalism, workers own their labor-power, but do not own the means of production through which they can actualize their labor power and generate use-values.As a result, the workers must sell their labor and are alienated from it. The capitalist takes the use-values created by the workers.However, the capitalist does not want these goods for their use-values, rather, he or she wants them for their exchange-values.According to Marx, capitalists desire profit orsurplus-value.However, no surplus value can be created naturally. The labor process simply transforms value from one form into another. Thus, according to Marx, the only way for the capitalist to gain surplus-value is by paying the workers' exchange-value, not their use-value. The difference between these two values is the surplus-value generated.

Effect of technical progress

According to Marx, the amount of actual product (i.e. use-value) that a typical worker produces in a given amount of time is the productivity of labour. It has tended to increase under capitalism. This is due to increase in the scale of enterprise, to specialisation of labour, and to the introduction of machinery. The immediate result of this is that the value of a given item tends to decrease, because the labour time necessary to produce it becomes less.

In a given amount of time, labour produces more items, but each unit has less value; the total value created per time remains the same. This means that the means of subsistence become cheaper; therefore the value of labour power or necessary labour time becomes less. If the length of the working day remains the same, this results in an increase in the surplus labour time and the rate of surplus value.

Technological advancement tends to increase the amount of capital needed to start a business, and it tends to result in an increasing preponderance of capital being spent on means of production (constant capital) as opposed to labour (variable capital). Marx called the ratio of these two kinds of capital the composition of capital.

Current theorizing in Marxian economics

Marxian economics has been built upon by many others, beginning almost at the moment of Marx's death. The second and third volumes ofDas Kapitalwere edited by his close associateFriedrich Engels,based on Marx's notes. Marx'sTheories of Surplus Valuewas edited byKarl Kautsky.The Marxian value theory and thePerron–Frobenius theoremon the positiveeigenvectorof apositive matrixare fundamental to mathematical treatments of Marxian economics. The relation between exploitation (surplus labour) and profit has been modeled with increased sophistication.

The Universities offering one or more courses in Marxian economics, or teach one or more economics courses on other topics from a perspective that they designate as Marxian or Marxist, includeColorado State University,The New School for Social Research,School of Oriental and African Studies,Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,State University of Campinas,Maastricht University,University of Bremen,University of California, Riverside,University of Leeds,University of Maine,University of Manchester,University of Massachusetts Amherst,University of Massachusetts Boston,University of Missouri–Kansas City,University of Sheffield,University of Utah,University of Calcutta,andYork University(Toronto).

English-language journals includeCapital & Class,Historical Materialism,Monthly Review,Rethinking Marxism,Review of Radical Political Economics,andStudies in Political Economy.

Criticism

Main article:Criticism of Marxism

See also:Criticisms of the labour theory of valueandCriticism of socialism

Much of the critique of classical Marxian economics came from Marxian economists that revised Marx's original theory, or by theAustrian Schoolof economics. V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz,writing in 1906–07,and subsequent critics claimed that Marx'slabor theory of valueand law of thetendency of the rate of profit to fallare internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are corrected, his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.

Whether the rate of profit in capitalism has, as Marx predicted, tended to fall is a subject of debate. N. Okishio, in 1961, devised a theorem (Okishio's theorem) showing that if capitalists pursue cost-cutting techniques and if the real wage does not rise, the rate of profit must rise.

The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.

The economies of Marxist states in the 20th century have been criticized for exhibitingovercentralizationandshortageof goods and the prevalence ofsecond economies(black markets) for very basic goods, leadingJános Kornaiand colleagues to theorize these systems as chronicshortage economies.While Kornai attributes some specific problems to efforts at consistency with Marxian methodological principles,and others have proposed economic planning schemes that do directly employ Marxian concepts such as labor content,the theory of shortage economy refers to measurable performanceinplanned economiesthat employed a variety of models and techniques such asproduct balances,linear programmingandinput-output planningand not to Marxian economic theory.Dembinskiargued Marx's determination of "labor value", a central concept in the labor theory of value, was inconsistent, and if accurately assessed in these economies helps explain their decline.

Relevance in economics

According to economists such asGeorge StiglerandRobert Solowin 1988, Marxist economics are not relevant to English-speaking economics, having "virtually no impact",only "represent a small minority of modern economists"and are "an irrelevant dead end."

Professor Jonathon Sperber says some elements, such asbase and superstructure,exploitation of workers within thefree market,and crises of capitalism (such as boom andbustcycles), remain salient today, albeit with contemporary updates, while others he sees as less relevant, such as thelabor theory of valueandthe tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Neo-Marxian economics

See also:Neo-Marxian economicsandNeo-Marxism

The terms "neo-Marxian", "post-Marxian", and "radical political economics" were first used to refer to a distinct tradition ofeconomic theoryin the 1970s and 1980s that stems from Marxian economic thought. Many of the leading figures were associated with theleftistMonthly ReviewSchool. The neo-Marxist approach todevelopment economicsis connected withdependencyandworld systemstheories. In these cases, the 'exploitation' that classifies it as Marxist is an external one, rather than the normal 'internal' exploitation ofclassical Marxism.

Inindustrial economics,the neo-Marxian approach stresses themonopolisticandoligarchicalrather than thecompetitivenature ofcapitalism.This approach is associated withMichał Kalecki,Josef Steindl,Paul A. BaranandPaul Sweezy.

Such theorists asMarc Fleurbaey,Samuel Bowles,David Gordon,John Roemer,Herbert Gintis,Jon Elster,andAdam Przeworskihave adopted the techniques ofneoclassical economics,includinggame theoryand mathematical modeling, to demonstrate Marxian concepts such as exploitation andclass conflict.

The neo-Marxian approach integrated non-Marxist or "bourgeois" economics from thepost-KeynesianslikeJoan Robinsonand theneo-Ricardianschool ofPiero Sraffa.Polish economistsMichał Kalecki,Rosa Luxemburg,Henryk Grossman,Adam Przeworski,andOskar Langewere influential in this school, particularly in developing theories ofunderconsumption.While most officialcommunistparties denounced neo-Marxian theories as "bourgeois economics," some neo-Marxians served as advisers to socialist or Third World developing governments. Neo-marxist theories were also influential in the study ofImperialism.

Among the critics pointing out internal inconsistencies are former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such asPaul Sweezy,Nobuo Okishio,Ian Steedman,John Roemer,Gary Mongiovi,andDavid Laibman,who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it inCapital.

Proponents of thetemporal single-system interpretation(TSSI) of Marx's value theory claim that the supposed inconsistencies are actually the result of misinterpretation; they argue that when Marx's theory is understood as "temporal" and "single-system," the alleged internal inconsistencies disappear. In a recent survey of the debate, a proponent of the TSSI concludes that "theproofsof inconsistency are no longer defended; the entire case against Marx has been reduced to theinterpretiveissue. "

Despite being an orthodox Marxist economist,Maurice Dobbwas also associated with this current.

Concepts

Big businesscan maintain selling prices at high levels while still competing to cut costs, advertise and market their products. However, competition is generally limited with a few large capital formations sharing various markets, with the exception of a few actual monopolies (such as theBell Systemat the time). Theeconomic surplusesthat result cannot be absorbed through consumers spending more. The concentration of the surplus in the hands of the business elite must therefore be geared towardsimperialisticandmilitaristicgovernment tendencies, which is the easiest and surest way to utilisesurplus productive capacity.

Exploitationfocuses on low wage workers and groups at home, especially minorities. Average earners see the pressures in drive for production destroy their human relationships, leading to wider alienation and hostility. The whole system is largely irrational since though individuals may make rational decisions, the ultimate systemic goals are not. The system continues to function so long asKeynesianfull employment policies are pursued, but there is the continued threat to stability from less-developed countries throwing off the restraints of neo-colonial domination.

Labor theory of value

Paul A. Baranintroduced the concept of potentialeconomic surplusto deal with novel complexities raised by the dominance ofmonopoly capital,in particular the theoretical prediction that monopoly capitalism would be associated with low capacity utilization, and hence potential surplus would typically be much larger than the realized surplus. WithPaul Sweezy,Baran elaborated the importance of this innovation, its consistency with Marx's labor concept ofvalueand supplementary relation to Marx's category ofsurplus value.

According to Baran's categories:

• Actual economic surplus: "the difference between what society's actual current output and its actual current consumption." Hence, it is equal to current savings or accumulation.
• Potential economic surplus: "the difference between that output that could be produced in a given natural and technical environment with the help of employable productive resources, and what might be regarded as essential consumption."

Baran also introduced the concept of planned surplus—a category that could only be operationalized in a rationally plannedsocialistsociety. This was defined as "the difference between society's 'optimum' output available in a historically given natural and technological environment under conditions of planned 'optimal' utilization of all available productive resources, and some chosen 'optimal' volume of consumption."

Baran used the surplus concept to analyze underdeveloped economies (or what are now more optimistically called "developing economies" ) in hisPolitical Economy of Growth.

See also

• List of Marxian economists
• Capitalist mode of production
• Capital accumulation
• Evolutionary economics
• Surplus labour
• Labour power
• Law of value
• Unequal exchange
• Value product
• Productive and unproductive labour
• Regulation school
• Socialist economics
• The Accumulation of Capital
• Material product
• Critique of political economy

References

Works cited

• Kliman, Andrew(2006).Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency.Le xing ton Books.

Further reading

• Glyn, Andrew (1987). "Marxist economics".The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.Vol. 3. pp. 390–95.doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1135-1.ISBN978-1-349-95121-5.
• Roemer, J. E.(1987). "Marxian value analysis".The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.Vol. 3. pp. 383–87.doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1001-1.ISBN978-1-349-95121-5.
• John E. Roemer (2008). "socialism (new perspectives),"The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,2nd Edition,Abstract.
• Diane Flaherty (2008). "radical economics,"The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics,2nd Edition,Abstract.
• Lenny Flank, 'Contradictions of Capitalism: An Introduction to Marxist Economics', St Petersburg, Florida: Red and Black Publishers, 2007.ISBN978-0-9791813-9-9.
• Heilbroner, Robert(2000).The Worldly Philosophers(7th ed.). London:Penguin Books.ISBN978-0-140-29006-6.
• Screpanti, Ernesto;Zamagni, Stefano(2005).An Outline of the History of Economic Thought(2nd ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-199-27913-5.
• Thomas T. Sekine,The Dialectic of Capital. A Study of the Inner Logic of Capitalism,2 volumes (preliminary edition), Tokyo 1986;OCLC489902822(vol. 1),OCLC873921143(vol. 2).
• Solow, Robert M.(20 March 1988)."The Wide, Wide World Of Wealth (The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics'.Edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman. Four volumes. 4,103 pp. New York: Stockton Press. $650) ".New York Times.
• Marc Fleurbaey,"Economics and economic justice." (2004).
• Althusser, LouisandBalibar, Étienne.Reading Capital.London: Verso, 2009.
• Bottomore, Tom, ed.A Dictionary of Marxist Thought.Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
• Brennan, David M.; Kristjanson-Gural, David; Mulder, Catherine P.; Olsen, Erik K., eds. (2017).Routledge Handbook of Marxian Economics.Routledge.ISBN978-1138774933.
• Cochrane, James L. (1970). "Marxian Macroeconomics".Macroeconomics Before Keynes.Glenview: Scott, Foresman & Co. pp.43–58.OCLC799965716.
• Fine, Ben.Marx's Capital.5th ed. London: Pluto, 2010.
• Harvey, David.A Companion to Marx's Capital.London: Verso, 2010.
• Harvey, David.The Limits of Capital.London: Verso, 2006.
• Mandel, Ernest.Marxist Economic Theory.New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970.
• Mandel, Ernest.The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx.New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977.
• Morishima, Michio.Marx's Economics: A Dual Theory of Value and Growth.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
• Postone, Moishe.Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory.Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• Saad-Filho, Alfredo.The Value of Marx: Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism.London: Routledge, 2002.

External links

• Marxian Economics(archivefromSchwartz center of economic policy analysis)
• Marxian Political Economy
• The Neo-Marxian Schools(archivefromSchwartz center of economic policy analysis)
• A Marxian Introduction to Modern Economics
• International working group on value theory
• An outline of Marxist economics,Chapter 6 ofReformism or Revolutionby Alan Woods
• The End of the MarketA website containing a critical evaluation the idea of the market-clearing price which affirms Marx's theory that in capitalism profitability would decline
• The Neo-Marxian Schools ( "Radical Political Economy" )
• If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?Monthly Reviewarticle detailing the degeneration of Marxian economics.
• UMass Amherst Economics, 25 lecturesplaylist onYouTube