Scan barcode
georglowinger's review
3.0
“We conclude that dominant ideas are not given by human nature, but are shaped by socioeconomic relations and can be changed in the underlying relationships. There is thus hope for a completely new and better society with new and better views by most people”. (xxiv).
This book is an attempt to write a 1 year course text for a 101 Economics class from the perspective of a Marxist-Humanist. Unlike the dry and doctrinaire Soviet texts, this book focuses on economics from a New Left, American-centric analysis. However, unlike many American textbooks, there is a pronounced, and clear political ideology behind this text, which is not hidden, and is certainly not at all subtle. One reviewer went as far to decry the book as having a “a Cowboys and Indians mentality”. This isn’t too far from the truth, although it should be noted that the book starts out with a genuine attempt to provide a response to received wisdom, using Samuelson as a representative of a conservative Keynesian, and Milton Friedman as a right-wing monetarist, or a liberal Keynesian (nobody is typically attached to this label). Karl Marx, Paul Sweezy, Thorstein Veblen, Michal Kalecki, and the authors (who tend to have an undogmatic neo-Marxist, post-Keynesian theoretical angle) tend to be the representatives of the ‘critical’ or ‘radical’ viewpoint.
The tone then notably switches in the book from a “one the one hand, on the other hand” to a marked tone of opponents being “destroyed” or “debunked”. Whilst the reader is likely more inclined to believe Hunt and Sherman in place of Friedman, this often makes the book rhetorically poor, and distracts from many of the otherwise great points that the book makes. Also, this can be confusing to the reader who begins the book seeing alternative points of view held as courtly disagreements, to then see these same intellectual opponents lampooned and exposed as being agents of monopoly capital further on in the book. Also, it leaves students and autodidacts with a poor grounding and weak training for their study of economics. The facts can, and should, speak for themselves, even if that means that we must question the fundamental assumptions of received wisdom and the dominant hegemony within the study of economics and social science more broadly. Also, taking an openly combative tone when you’re already on the backfoot, is not advisable for winning over partisans on the other side.
The authors’ assumptions are exposited in the introduction, and they do a good job of articulating their radicalism without moralising or lacking clarity. But, again, knowing that the authors are on the back foot, a more forceful defence of their view of human nature could have been put forth (e.g. with reference to Kropotkin’s studies into the importance of compassion in human and nonhuman societies, or exploration experimental psychology demonstrating the egalitarian values of humans etc). Whilst it is true that those on the right tend to avoid this, see ([b:Basic Economics|23677511|Basic Economics|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1439554367l/23677511._SY75_.jpg|812361], [b:Capitalism and Freedom|51877|Capitalism and Freedom|Milton Friedman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1569784719l/51877._SY75_.jpg|1534488]) it is still much more persuasive to partisans.
With that said, despite its faults this book is worth reading for those who are allergic to Mankiw and Samuelson, and want to read about the economy, with a focus on the typical college topics (supply and demand curves, stagflation, market imperfections) etc, or even for those who would like to read about how a radical would respond to many of the claims by Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, or Ludwig von Mises (e.g. how planned economies work, why racism occurs under capitalism despite it being unprofitable etc). This is where the book is strongest, even if it engages with its opponents in an occasionally juvenile way.
The sourcing, organisation, summaries and further reading are exemplary, with few examples, and the enormous forests’ worth of literature that the author have trawled through will provide the attentive reader with a good range of texts to follow up on, whether its Erich Fromm on alienation, or Ronald Meek on the Transformation Problem.
Part 1 examines the evolution of economic institutions and provides a brief summation of the history of economic theory. This, owing to the enormous scope of the book is of course limited, but leaves an agreeable history, with a focus more on class struggle and revolution than would typically be given by the average text. Hunt and Sherman give a whistle stop tour of feudalism, the Keynesian Revolution, and end with a very New Left-inspired set of chapters on the Women’s Movement, radicalism after the Vietnam War, and American anti-Communism, which felt a little out of place for an economics textbook.
Part 2 explores microeconomics, which is unusual for most economics texts, as they typically examine macroeconomics first (the authors argue that this is because microeconomics is often seen as boring… they are not wrong). Much of this section I will be revisiting, but the basic aspects of supply and demand, elasticity of demand, labour theory of value, market inefficiencies, prices, and discrimination are explored here. The summaries in this section are great, especially if you find yourself dumbfounded after reading through a chapter on price theory having retained or understanding very little.
Part 3 examines macroeconomics, with a focus on inflation and unemployment. Here is where the tone gets a lot more aggressive, perhaps owing to the less abstract focus of the book, since macroeconomics is where theory becomes much more politicised in a louder, more overt manner. Hunt and Sherman introduce some important problems in economics which are seldom examined by the layperson. For example, Hunt and Sherman argue that the true extent of unemployment is seldom considered, as unemployment figures may miss those underemployed, working multiple jobs, or those who become voluntarily unemployed because they simply cannot find a job and give up. Also, the importance of advertising and social conditions (with heavy reference to both Galbraith and the Frankfurt School) appear, which question the rational man of homo economicus who simply maximises pleasure, and does so through his own, free mental calculation. Perhaps the most interesting chapters in this section are those on economic underdevelopment, wherein the theory of imperialism is defended in a manner which answers many of the critics of the theory (see for example [b:Basic Economics|23677511|Basic Economics|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1439554367l/23677511._SY75_.jpg|812361]), and also the subchapter on “How Bush and Reagan Proved Keynes Correct and Friedman Wrong’, wherein the authors point out that Bush and Reagan’s deficit spending caused an economic expansion. Following their attack on Friedman, the authors then make a very important note “Only when full employment is approached will deficits begin to cause inflation” (532).
Then, Part 4 describes socialist economies, with a ‘comparative’ focus. This is the weakest part of the book, and attempts to both critique the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, whilst exploring some of the merits of the then decaying systems. The lack of economic inequality, the wonder of full employment, rapid growth are praised, yet the authors see the failures of the Soviet model as being due to its overcentralisation, whereas Yugoslavia failed because it had the worst aspects of capitalism (owing to its marketisation) such as monopoly, unemployment and inequality. In response, “more trial and error will be needed to find an optimum combination of planning and markets under socialism”. Closing the book with a retrospectively awkward chatper on Perestroika, the authors cheer on the democratisation of the USSR, hoping that more varities of socialism will arise. The idea that the country is falling apart doesn’t exactly leap of the pages, even if the authors put their doubts forward, and like many Western Sovietologists and sympathisers the authors remain hopeful (see for example [b:The Soviet Union: Politics, Economics, And Society From Lenin To Gorbachev|4492405|The Soviet Union Politics, Economics, And Society From Lenin To Gorbachev|Ronald J. Hill|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|4704711], and [b:Is the Red Flag Flying?: The Political Economy of the Soviet Union|4470412|Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union (Imperialism series)|Albert Szymanski|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|4518672]).
*I understand that this book is not the most recent volume, and that the most recent edition is markedly different. Any critique of this book is for this current volume, as it is the only one in my possession currently
This book is an attempt to write a 1 year course text for a 101 Economics class from the perspective of a Marxist-Humanist. Unlike the dry and doctrinaire Soviet texts, this book focuses on economics from a New Left, American-centric analysis. However, unlike many American textbooks, there is a pronounced, and clear political ideology behind this text, which is not hidden, and is certainly not at all subtle. One reviewer went as far to decry the book as having a “a Cowboys and Indians mentality”. This isn’t too far from the truth, although it should be noted that the book starts out with a genuine attempt to provide a response to received wisdom, using Samuelson as a representative of a conservative Keynesian, and Milton Friedman as a right-wing monetarist, or a liberal Keynesian (nobody is typically attached to this label). Karl Marx, Paul Sweezy, Thorstein Veblen, Michal Kalecki, and the authors (who tend to have an undogmatic neo-Marxist, post-Keynesian theoretical angle) tend to be the representatives of the ‘critical’ or ‘radical’ viewpoint.
The tone then notably switches in the book from a “one the one hand, on the other hand” to a marked tone of opponents being “destroyed” or “debunked”. Whilst the reader is likely more inclined to believe Hunt and Sherman in place of Friedman, this often makes the book rhetorically poor, and distracts from many of the otherwise great points that the book makes. Also, this can be confusing to the reader who begins the book seeing alternative points of view held as courtly disagreements, to then see these same intellectual opponents lampooned and exposed as being agents of monopoly capital further on in the book. Also, it leaves students and autodidacts with a poor grounding and weak training for their study of economics. The facts can, and should, speak for themselves, even if that means that we must question the fundamental assumptions of received wisdom and the dominant hegemony within the study of economics and social science more broadly. Also, taking an openly combative tone when you’re already on the backfoot, is not advisable for winning over partisans on the other side.
The authors’ assumptions are exposited in the introduction, and they do a good job of articulating their radicalism without moralising or lacking clarity. But, again, knowing that the authors are on the back foot, a more forceful defence of their view of human nature could have been put forth (e.g. with reference to Kropotkin’s studies into the importance of compassion in human and nonhuman societies, or exploration experimental psychology demonstrating the egalitarian values of humans etc). Whilst it is true that those on the right tend to avoid this, see ([b:Basic Economics|23677511|Basic Economics|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1439554367l/23677511._SY75_.jpg|812361], [b:Capitalism and Freedom|51877|Capitalism and Freedom|Milton Friedman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1569784719l/51877._SY75_.jpg|1534488]) it is still much more persuasive to partisans.
With that said, despite its faults this book is worth reading for those who are allergic to Mankiw and Samuelson, and want to read about the economy, with a focus on the typical college topics (supply and demand curves, stagflation, market imperfections) etc, or even for those who would like to read about how a radical would respond to many of the claims by Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, or Ludwig von Mises (e.g. how planned economies work, why racism occurs under capitalism despite it being unprofitable etc). This is where the book is strongest, even if it engages with its opponents in an occasionally juvenile way.
The sourcing, organisation, summaries and further reading are exemplary, with few examples, and the enormous forests’ worth of literature that the author have trawled through will provide the attentive reader with a good range of texts to follow up on, whether its Erich Fromm on alienation, or Ronald Meek on the Transformation Problem.
Part 1 examines the evolution of economic institutions and provides a brief summation of the history of economic theory. This, owing to the enormous scope of the book is of course limited, but leaves an agreeable history, with a focus more on class struggle and revolution than would typically be given by the average text. Hunt and Sherman give a whistle stop tour of feudalism, the Keynesian Revolution, and end with a very New Left-inspired set of chapters on the Women’s Movement, radicalism after the Vietnam War, and American anti-Communism, which felt a little out of place for an economics textbook.
Part 2 explores microeconomics, which is unusual for most economics texts, as they typically examine macroeconomics first (the authors argue that this is because microeconomics is often seen as boring… they are not wrong). Much of this section I will be revisiting, but the basic aspects of supply and demand, elasticity of demand, labour theory of value, market inefficiencies, prices, and discrimination are explored here. The summaries in this section are great, especially if you find yourself dumbfounded after reading through a chapter on price theory having retained or understanding very little.
Part 3 examines macroeconomics, with a focus on inflation and unemployment. Here is where the tone gets a lot more aggressive, perhaps owing to the less abstract focus of the book, since macroeconomics is where theory becomes much more politicised in a louder, more overt manner. Hunt and Sherman introduce some important problems in economics which are seldom examined by the layperson. For example, Hunt and Sherman argue that the true extent of unemployment is seldom considered, as unemployment figures may miss those underemployed, working multiple jobs, or those who become voluntarily unemployed because they simply cannot find a job and give up. Also, the importance of advertising and social conditions (with heavy reference to both Galbraith and the Frankfurt School) appear, which question the rational man of homo economicus who simply maximises pleasure, and does so through his own, free mental calculation. Perhaps the most interesting chapters in this section are those on economic underdevelopment, wherein the theory of imperialism is defended in a manner which answers many of the critics of the theory (see for example [b:Basic Economics|23677511|Basic Economics|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1439554367l/23677511._SY75_.jpg|812361]), and also the subchapter on “How Bush and Reagan Proved Keynes Correct and Friedman Wrong’, wherein the authors point out that Bush and Reagan’s deficit spending caused an economic expansion. Following their attack on Friedman, the authors then make a very important note “Only when full employment is approached will deficits begin to cause inflation” (532).
Then, Part 4 describes socialist economies, with a ‘comparative’ focus. This is the weakest part of the book, and attempts to both critique the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, whilst exploring some of the merits of the then decaying systems. The lack of economic inequality, the wonder of full employment, rapid growth are praised, yet the authors see the failures of the Soviet model as being due to its overcentralisation, whereas Yugoslavia failed because it had the worst aspects of capitalism (owing to its marketisation) such as monopoly, unemployment and inequality. In response, “more trial and error will be needed to find an optimum combination of planning and markets under socialism”. Closing the book with a retrospectively awkward chatper on Perestroika, the authors cheer on the democratisation of the USSR, hoping that more varities of socialism will arise. The idea that the country is falling apart doesn’t exactly leap of the pages, even if the authors put their doubts forward, and like many Western Sovietologists and sympathisers the authors remain hopeful (see for example [b:The Soviet Union: Politics, Economics, And Society From Lenin To Gorbachev|4492405|The Soviet Union Politics, Economics, And Society From Lenin To Gorbachev|Ronald J. Hill|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|4704711], and [b:Is the Red Flag Flying?: The Political Economy of the Soviet Union|4470412|Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union (Imperialism series)|Albert Szymanski|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/book/50x75-a91bf249278a81aabab721ef782c4a74.png|4518672]).
*I understand that this book is not the most recent volume, and that the most recent edition is markedly different. Any critique of this book is for this current volume, as it is the only one in my possession currently
More...