Marxian economics

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Marxian economics begins with a provocation: Karl Marx, writing in the mid-19th century, predicted that capitalism would generate crises in boom and bust cycles at a time when no other major economist of his day recognized that tendency as inherent to the system at all. Robert Heilbroner, writing in The Worldly Philosophers, noted that observation with some force. The prediction has shaped debates in economics for more than a century since. But what exactly is Marxian economics, and why does it remain a source of controversy, adaptation, and occasional rehabilitation in universities around the world? The school is not simply Marxism as a political ideology. In academic settings, it is deliberately distinguished from normative Marxist thought, treated instead as an analytical framework for understanding economic systems. It draws on sources both within and outside the Marxist tradition, and it has branched into multiple schools that sometimes directly oppose one another. George Stigler and Robert Solow, writing in 1988, dismissed it as having virtually no impact on mainstream economics. Yet certain ideas it produced, including Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, have found their way into capitalist economic thinking. The question the rest of this documentary will examine is how a body of thought rooted in a 19th-century critique of classical economists came to contain so many competing interpretations, so much mathematical refinement, and so persistent a presence in universities across four continents.

• 2. Marx's Dialogue with Smith and Ricardo

  ›

  Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776, and its central claim was that market economies grow productive through what Smith called the division of labor, meaning the specialization of workers and businesses. Smith noted, with some concern, that ever-narrower specialization could ultimately harm the workers whose jobs shrank as a result. Marx took that concern and expanded it considerably. Where Smith saw labor narrowing as a side effect, Marx built an entire theory around the damage capitalism could inflict on those who worked within it. Marx also engaged directly with David Ricardo, whose On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation appeared in 1817. Ricardo had developed a distribution theory grounded in a labour theory of value, holding that an object's value equals the labor embodied in it. Ricardo also argued that profit came as a deduction from total social output, and that wages and profit moved inversely. Marx adopted Ricardo's framework as the backbone of his own formal economic analysis in Capital. A third influence was Thomas Malthus, whose 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population argued that population growth drove wages to subsistence levels. Marx rejected the biological explanation and replaced it with an economic one. He argued that capitalism itself generated a reserve army of labour, a pool of unemployed workers whose existence kept wages down, without any reference to population biology. In Theories of Surplus Value, Marx credited Smith for advancing beyond the Physiocrats by recognizing that all social labor, not just agricultural labor, creates value. That recognition, Marx wrote, meant surplus value in the form of profit, rent, or interest was simply a portion of labor appropriated by those who owned the material conditions of production.

• 3. Value, Labor, and Surplus

  ›

  Capital, Volume I opens with a single sentence Marx placed at the very beginning: the wealth of societies where capitalism prevails presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities. A commodity, in Marx's framework, is any product of human labor made for sale in a market. Marx argued that commodities carry two distinct kinds of worth: use-value, which is practical usefulness, and value, which measures a commodity's worth against other commodities. The only thing common to all commodities, Marx reasoned, is that they are all products of human labor. From that premise he derived the labour theory of value: the value of a commodity equals the average socially necessary labour time required to produce it. Marx himself traced that theoretical lineage back at least as far as an anonymous work published in London around 1739 or 1740, Some Thoughts on the Interest of Money in General, and Particularly the Publick Funds. Marx further distinguished between two types of labor: concrete labor, the specific character of a particular job such as a farmer's work versus a tailor's, and abstract labor, the general expenditure of human effort that allows qualitatively different products to be compared quantitatively. Abstract labor serves as the basic unit of value. The concept of surplus value follows from this structure. Workers sell their labor power to capitalists. The wage they receive covers only what Marx called necessary labor, the time required to reproduce the worker's own subsistence. The remaining time worked, surplus labor, generates value that the capitalist appropriates as profit. Marx called the gap between the value a worker produces and the wage paid a form of unpaid labor. He also identified commodity fetishism as the tendency of markets to obscure these social relationships, making people highly aware of goods while obscuring the labor and relationships behind them.

• 4. Method and History

  ›

  Marx adapted dialectics from the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel as his primary analytical method. Dialectics treats the world as composed of relations and processes of change rather than of stable, separate objects. One key operation within the method is abstraction: from a mass of data understood as an organic whole, the analyst isolates specific relations or processes for examination. A sale, for instance, can be abstracted from a buyer's or a seller's point of view, or as a general category rather than a particular transaction. A second operation Marx borrowed from Hegel was the deduction of categories. Categories such as the commodity form, the money form, and the capital form needed to be systematically derived, Marx argued, not grasped in the external, surface-level way he attributed to bourgeois economists. This corresponds to Hegel's critique of Kant's transcendental philosophy. On the question of historical stages, Marx held that societies pass through primitive communism, slave societies, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally communism, with capitalism as the present stage in his own era. Historians who later tried to date capitalism's origins placed its beginning somewhere between roughly 1450, in the view associated with Werner Sombart, and some point in the 17th century, in the view associated with Eric Hobsbawm. Marx's notes prepared in anticipation of writing Das Kapital were eventually published in 1939 under the title Grundrisse. The first volume of Das Kapital appeared in 1867. Marx died before completing the project, and Friedrich Engels edited the second and third volumes from Marx's notes. Karl Kautsky later edited Marx's Theories of Surplus Value.

• 5. Technical Change and Capital

  ›

  Technical progress created a specific problem within Marx's framework. As productivity rises, more goods can be produced in the same amount of time, but each unit embeds less labor and therefore carries less value. The total value generated per unit of time stays constant even as the physical output grows. This matters for the distribution between workers and capitalists. As the means of subsistence become cheaper to produce, the labor time necessary to sustain a worker's life shrinks. If the working day stays the same length, the proportion of that day devoted to surplus labor increases, raising the rate of surplus value. Technological advancement also tends to raise the capital required to enter a business and to shift the composition of spending toward means of production, what Marx called constant capital, rather than toward labor, which he called variable capital. Marx tracked this ratio as the composition of capital. Richard Goodwin formalized Marx's theory of economic cycles in a paper titled A Growth Cycle, published in 1967, the centenary year of Capital, Volume I. On money, Marx held that gold and silver function as money because they concentrate a large amount of labor in a small, durable form. Paper money, in this model, is a token representing gold or silver, carrying almost no value of its own but sustained in circulation by state authority. Marx quoted this directly in Capital: paper money is a token representing gold or money.

• 6. Criticism and Internal Debate

  ›

  V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898, and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07, launched what became the first major wave of criticism targeting the internal consistency of Marx's value theory. Their claim was that Marx's conclusions did not actually follow from his theoretical premises. Once those alleged errors were corrected, the argument went, the proposition that aggregate price and profit equal aggregate value and surplus value no longer held. That attack, if sustained, would undermine Marx's theory that worker exploitation is the sole source of profit. The debate became particularly prominent from the 1970s onward. Critics from within the Marxian tradition, including Paul Sweezy, Nobuo Okishio, Ian Steedman, John Roemer, Gary Mongiovi, and David Laibman, proposed grounding the field in what they considered corrected versions of Marxian economics rather than in Marx's original presentation. Okishio devised a theorem in 1961 showing that if capitalists adopt cost-cutting techniques and real wages do not rise, the rate of profit must rise rather than fall, directly contradicting Marx's prediction. Proponents of what they called the temporal single-system interpretation argued in response that the inconsistencies were artifacts of misreading. When Marx's theory is understood as temporal and single-system, they contended, the contradictions disappear. A survey of the debate by a proponent of that interpretation concluded that the proofs of inconsistency are no longer defended and that the case against Marx had been reduced to a question of interpretation. The economies of Marxist states also drew criticism. János Kornai and colleagues theorized those systems as chronic shortage economies, characterized by overcentralization and persistent scarcity of basic goods, including the growth of black markets.

• 7. Neo-Marxian Extensions

  ›

  The terms neo-Marxian, post-Marxian, and radical political economics came into use in the 1970s and 1980s to describe a distinct tradition that extended and revised classical Marxian thought. Many of its leading figures were associated with the Monthly Review School. Paul A. Baran introduced the concept of potential economic surplus to address the specific conditions of monopoly capitalism, where the theoretical expectation was low capacity utilization and a potential surplus much larger than the actually realized one. Working with Paul Sweezy, Baran elaborated three categories: actual economic surplus, defined as the difference between current output and current consumption; potential economic surplus, the difference between what could be produced with available resources and essential consumption; and planned surplus, a category that could only function in a rationally planned socialist society. Baran applied the surplus concept to underdeveloped economies in his Political Economy of Growth. Polish economists Michal Kalecki, Rosa Luxemburg, Henryk Grossman, Adam Przeworski, and Oskar Lange contributed especially to theories of underconsumption. In industrial economics, the neo-Marxian approach emphasized monopoly and oligopoly rather than competition, an orientation associated with Kalecki, Josef Steindl, Baran, and Sweezy. A separate strand, known as Analytical Marxism, adopted the techniques of neoclassical economics including game theory and mathematical modeling to demonstrate concepts like exploitation and class conflict. Theorists in this group included Marc Fleurbaey, Samuel Bowles, David Gordon, John Roemer, Herbert Gintis, Jon Elster, and Adam Przeworski. The Perron-Frobenius theorem on the positive eigenvector of a positive matrix became fundamental to mathematical treatments of Marxian value theory, providing formal tools for a tradition that had long been debated in more qualitative terms.

• 8. Where the School Stands

  ›

  Marxian economics is now taught at a range of institutions across multiple continents. Universities that offer courses in the subject or teach economics from a Marxian perspective include Colorado State University, The New School for Social Research, the School of Oriental and African Studies, the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, the State University of Campinas, Maastricht University, the University of Bremen, the University of California Riverside, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, the University of Utah, the University of Calcutta, and York University in Toronto, among others. English-language journals dedicated to work in the tradition include Capital and Class, Historical Materialism, Monthly Review, Rethinking Marxism, Review of Radical Political Economics, and Studies in Political Economy. Jonathon Sperber, a professor who has written on Marx, identifies certain elements of the framework as still salient today: the concepts of base and superstructure, the analysis of worker exploitation within free markets, and the theory of crisis as boom and bust cycles. He sees other elements, including the labour theory of value and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, as less applicable to contemporary conditions. The Marxian value theory and the Perron-Frobenius theorem remain fundamental to mathematical work in the field, suggesting that formal development continues alongside the historical and interpretive debates.