Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

i'm under the impression that marxianism is more a philosophy and that marxism is more a political ideology, but i'm not sure. Gringo300 03:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

There are pages to discuss economic schools like Keynesianism, monetarism and so forth, but none to discuss schools such as Karl Marx's. I have been looking at the organization of pages and I think this page is definitely needed. Marxism is too broad as it discusses political ideas, philosophical ideas and perceptions of history as well as Marx's economic ideas. I definitely see a need for this page. I hope to fill it out more with Marx's ideas, as well as those of his followers.

Nakosomo 01:17, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Three quibbles:

• Personal opinion: I don't like "marxian" vis a vis "marxism": it seems to

mean "marxism that I think is right"; thus the line separating marxian from marxist becomes very subjective.

• Treatment doesn't go much into marxist economics after Marx. Check out:
  1. Marxian school
  2. Neo-Ricardian school
  3. Neo-Marxist school
  4. Soviet Planners

(I like the HET pages, if you hadn't noticed...)

• Critics of marxism need a look in, eg. austrian school, economic calculation debate

User:Chalst

Austrian economics is not mainstream

Austrian economics is not representative of Austrian economics. The following statement is false:

Most economists no longer subscribe to the labor theory of value, which has been superseded by ::the Austrian theory of subjectivism. Subjectivism states that things do not have inherent value; they have value only insofar as people desire them.

I replaced it with:

Most economists no longer subscribe to the labor theory of value, which has been superseded by the Neoclassical theory of value, which defines value mainly as exchange rate.

71.246.228.43 08:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge and rename article

Note: This article is listed on the Community portal List of things to do - Merge.

It seems to me that "marxian economics" would imply Marx's economic thought. This article is broader than that, as it includes other Marxist thinkers. "Marxist school of economics" on the other hand, doesn't seem accurate. A school surely implies a defined group of thinkers (e.g., Frankfurt School). So I agree with Chalst that using the term "Marxist" would be best. Therefore, I think that this article should be merged with the Marxist school article and renamed Marxist economics. Sunray 22:23, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you're saying here, but I think I disagree. "Marxian" and "Marxist" are both used rather widely to refer to writings/movements/etc. in the tradition of Karl Marx -- neither implies Marx personally. At least here in the U.S., Marxian is used by academic economists who want to distinguish their work, which grows out of Marx's economic analysis, from Marxism as a political ideology. See, for example, Wolf and Resnick, Economics: Marxian and Neoclassical. RadicalSubversiv E 22:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. What did you think of the proposal to merge the two articles and rename it "Marxist economics?" Sunray 23:10, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that the eventual article should be at Marxian economics. Marxist economics has a hint of "economics for communists", rather than treating it as a serious academic discipline. Wherever it eventually winds up, it should make reference to all three terms in the lead, and the other two should redirect there. RadicalSubversiv E 00:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say that "Marxian economics" sounds more like a serious academic discipline while "Marxist economics" sounds like economics for communists. In support of this, I note that the dictionary definition of Marxian is: "One that studies, advocates, or makes use of Karl Marx's philosophical or socioeconomic concepts." A Marxist is: "One that believes in or follows the ideas of Marx..." They are very close, but the word "studies" does imply that one might not be a follower, simply a student of Marx. Let's face it though, Marxists are communists.

Here's another perspective, though:

• It is common to speak of Marxian rather than Marxist theory when referring to political study that draws from the work of Marx for the analysis and understanding of existing (usually capitalist) economies, but rejects the more speculative predictions that Marx and many of his followers made about post-capitalist societies. --From Wikepedia article on Marx.

"Marxist" is by far the commoner term (367,000 vs. 32,300 Google hits). I'm not married to a particular term though, so if no one else weighs in on this, go ahead and merge it the way you want. Sunray 07:19, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I think both the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia quotations are accurate. The term "Marxian" is more frequently used by those attempting to engage in study and analysis, whereas "Marxist" is more frequently used by those directly advocating communist revolution. This whole discussion is somewhat academic, though, because I don't feel that I'm well-versed enough in the subject matter (I've never even read Capital) to do the merge myself. RadicalSubversiv E 07:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term "Marxian" is more frequently used by those attempting to engage in study and analysis. No, it isn't. The term you might be looking for is "Marxist Analysis". Either way, Marxism is not simply an economic mode of analysis nor simply a philosophical, historical or sociological. It is all of these. Merging the articles and mentioning this "Marxian" thing is your best bet at being remotely accurate. --jenlight 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at the "draws from the work of Marx." We need to cover both the studious and the speculative in an encyclopedia, though--all the facts, ma'am. Sunray 07:41, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The merged article should be about the economics that follows from Marx's economic work, and should be cover this work whether the workers call themselves marxist, maxian or neither. There's room for an article on the Marxian School of Economics, but that's an aspect of the whole field. I suppose it might be argued that the overarching article should be called Marxian economics, but that would violate the Wikipedia naming criteria, for the popularity reason User:Sunray has observed: note also that the marxist/marxian distinction is a relatively recent proposal within the timeline the article should be observing.
• The marxian/marxist distinction has also been used to distinguish the thought of those marxians faithful to the best interpretations of Marx's writings as opposed to vulgar marxism and the marxism that has been politically compromised. It is probably clear that I entirely dislike this, and I generally condemn the motives of those who propose the distinction. AFAICS the word marxian has not gained much traction, and there mostly in anglophone academic circles. ---- Charles Stewart 11:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one else has voiced an opinion on this and it has now been 10 days. Two of us favor proceeding with the merge and naming the article "Marxist economics." Radical prefers the term "Marxian" however feels he is not well-versed enough to carry it off on his own. It would be great if he would work on this, though, as his perspective would ensure that we made a clear distinction between the terms. I can't get to this for a couple of days, but am willing to work on it after that. Sunray 07:52, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

I hope you haven't been holding off on the merge on my account -- the issue of the article's name can always be revisited if there's more people with something to say on the subject. Feel free to get started, and I'll help out where I can. I've also got a couple of friends who've studied the subject pretty extensively at Umass (where Wolff and Resnick, cited above, teach); I'll see if I can coax either of them into contributing. RadicalSubversiv E 09:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Marxism is not the same as Marxian. Karl Marx himself said he was not a Marxist. Marxian economics is an attempt to find something valuable in Marx's analysis of capitalism without being encumbered by all the ideological baggage and associations of "Marxism". "Marxist" is a term which implies translation of economic analysis into (a particular kind of) political action; Marxian is purely analytical. Neither article is particularly good; and I have neither time nor sufficient expertise to do much at the moment. But they should not be merged, as this will discourage somebody who comes along who can contribute to either one from doing so. Rd232 21:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are saying don't change anything. You also note that neither article is particularly good. I think we all agree that the content needs improving. The two articles were listed for merging, in part, for that reason. Another reason for eliminating the Marxist school of economics article is that there is no such thing as a "Marxist school of economics." The discussion above indicates that some people think that the content would be more accurately dealt with under the term "Marxist economics." The thinking thus is that "Marxian economics" is usually construed as being Marx's own economic thought. The article needs to include the thought of others who have applied Marx's theories to economics i.e., Marxists. We need people that will work on the merge. Sunray 01:43, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

"The thinking thus is that "Marxian economics" is usually construed as being Marx's own economic thought." In all fairness, Sunray, you're the only person who's said that, and offered no evidence to support it. Moreover, the whole purpose of what Rd232 and I are saying that is people who have applied Marx's thought do not necessarily consider themselves "Marxists." As I stated above, though, I have no problem with merging the article under any of the names suggested and having a more thorough discussion about the name when there's more interest. RadicalSubversiv E 02:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right, I worded that poorly. I think that Charles said it best: "The marxian/marxist distinction has also been used to distinguish the thought of those marxians faithful to the best interpretations of Marx's writings as opposed to vulgar marxism and the marxism that has been politically compromised." The point, I think, is that Marx's own thought belongs in the article on Marx. What these two articles are trying to do is talk about what other theorists think, both those faithful to Marx's thought and those who diverge, but are nevertheless "Marxist." We need to cover both. Sunray 03:09, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I disagree. Marx made original contributions to economics which have resulted in a specific school of economic thinking that is called Marxist or Marxian economics, just as Keynes's original contributions are Keynesian economics. The subject matter is that body of thought -- i.e., the substance of it, not just "what other theorists think". RadicalSubversiv E 04:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have said that Marxian economics is Marx's thinking about economics. Everyone who has made an entry on this topic thus far agrees with that. If Marx's economic thought is not well enough covered in the article on him, then by all means lets write a separate article on Marxian economics. But since most of Marx's thinking was economic that seems absurd. The material in the Marxist school article is for the most part a direct crib from the Karl Marx article (the second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs are lifted from Section 4 of the Marx article). The Marxian economics article is a bit more original, but I'd be hard pressed to explain why the Marx's economic theories Section shouldn't be in the article on Marx.

Hoorah! Well stated. --jenlight 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't have much from thinkers other than Marx to work with here the whole Marxist/Marxian debate seems somewhat empty. If you think I am being persuaded to your argument, you are right. But I'm not sure whether it is better to move the Section on Marx's economic theories to the Karl Marx article or write a summary paragraph for that article and point to a larger article that combines what is worth saving from the two articles proposed for merging. Sunray 05:45, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Let me try another way of explaining this. Consult a university library system, and search for "Marx" as a subject heading. You will find lots of subject heading, including "Marx, Karl (1818-1883)", under which there are many sub-headings, some of which pertain to his writings on economics. But you will also find a separate subject heading, "Marxian economics". In my library catalog, this contains 371 titles, very few written by Marx, and few specifically about him. Mostly what you will find is texts expanding on Marx's economic theories (Beyond Capital: Towarda a Theory of Transition), or applying Marxian economic analysis in various ways (Capitalism Divided? : The City and Industry in British Social Development).

Marxian economics is thus a subject distcint from Marx himself (and even from Marxism generally). I have emphatically not said that "Marxian economics is Marx's thinking about economics. It is all originally based on Marx's writings, just as all Keynesianism is originally based on John Maynard Keynes, and much of the Chicago school is based on Milton Friedman -- yet no one would suggest merging those articles.

I don't dispute that what we have now is poorly written and limited in scope. But what we should have, which is usually what matters when we're talking about how to divide up articles, is comprehensive coverage of an entire body of thought, which has explained, expanded, correct, applied, and argued over Marx's original theories. That subject necessarily starts with an explanation of Marx's economic ideas -- which is now small task, given that on any given point there's likely to be several writers arguing over what Marx meant. I'm not competent enough to write that article, and I suspect you're not either (correct me if I'm wrong), but in true wiki style we can get a basic respectable article started and hope that others will arrive to correct it.

RadicalSubversiv E 06:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There isn't anything in either of these articles about anyone other than Marx. It is all about Marx's economic thought. Thus it is a moot point. We could have finished the article in the time we have been blathering on about it. Now, about your lack of confidence in your ability to produce an article on Marx... I could recommend a good therapist. :) Sunray 07:58, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I second RadicalSubversiv. Marx's economics is distinguished from Marxian economics and from Marxist economics. Unfortunately, other than the distinction itself and some vague ideas on the differences, I don't have much to contribute. Rd232 10:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've begun the merge. Note that I did not move paras 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the Marxist school of economics article, as they are already contained in the main article on Marx. Please read the resulting article here to see if it makes sense in its current form. Further work needed: 1) A good edit; 2) some further re-formating; 3) Deletion of "Marxist school" article; 4) additions to the article. Sunray 03:10, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Great work! I've just done some minor rephrasings and such. "See also" sections and similar are generally used for terms that haven't been free linked in the article text but need to be worked in somewhere -- I have, however, bolded some key concepts as suggested in the Manual of Style. I think Marxist school of economics is fine as a redirect.

The only major organizational problem I see with the article is the "Marx and classical economics" and "Marx's economic theories". The discussion of "Marx and classical economics" is basically just an explanation of his theories through reference to Smith and Ricardo. I'll see if I can think of a way to merge them intelligently. RadicalSubversiv E 08:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UMass economics department

Ollieplatt's obvious trolling aside, the econ department at UMass is probably the only one in the country which integrates the Marxian framework into the curriculum. Google demonstrates plenty of folks with degrees from there listing specialties in Marxian economics, and the department's own website quotes from an external evaluation committee stating that the department is a "jewel in the crown" and listing Marxian economics first among the economic traditions present there. Moreover, Rethinking Marxism is based there. See also [1], [2]. RadicalSubversiv E 10:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I understand you are very familiar with it. Ollieplatt 10:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

University of Utah's economics department is probably completely Marxist, New School's has a strong Marxian content (as well as top Marxian economists like Anwar Shaikh). I would say that there are quite a bit of schools with econ departments not identified as "Marxist" which integrate it into the curriculum.

Marxian economics and the fall of the Soviet bloc

Ollieplatt keeps adding the phrase "or the failure of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet bloc" to the first sentence under "Marxian vs Marxism." It renders the sentence nonsensical and looks like Ollieplatt is doing some trolling. If it is not a troll, and Ollieplatt wants to connect this idea to the article, he should write a paragraph on it. Sunray 17:19, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Neutrality

Though many Marxist authors have attempted to portray the Austrian school as a "bourgeois reaction" to Marx, such an interpretation is untenable:

Statements like this aren't particularly neutral. - FrancisTyers 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This has sentence is modified and is now marked "uncited". --71.241.143.133 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Rather than duplicating the material at Marxism, I'd like to see some information about the etymology of the term "Marxian". When was it first used? That's what I came to the page looking for. --71.241.143.133 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, I am going to look that up right now. I haven't the slightest clue where this term comes from. --jenlight 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anwar Sheikh

The link to Anwar Sheikh is about someone who wrote about religion. Is this the real one? http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/

Neoclassical (macro)economics is Marxian?

The current version of the article claims that

"His work is seen as the basis for a viable analytic framework and an alternative to more conventional neoclassical economics."

I am certainly not an expert on Marx, but my professors claim that neoclassical economics is "extremely" Marxian, in the following sense: Marx argued that people's behaviour is largely determined by their social class/status. Modern macroeconomics models individuals as making decisions that are determined by a limited set of attributes (wealth, and possibly age, gender, children). Of course, economists view this limited set of attributes as a simplifying assumption, but nevertheless maintain that for many decisions, these assumptions yield good approximations to observed behaviour.

Summary: like Marx, macroeconomists argue that much of human behaviour can be explained by social class. Therefore, Marx provides a foundation rather than an alternative to neoclassical economics.

This article should either provide evidence for its "Marx is an alternative" claim, or not make this claim.

Clausen 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)