Marxian economics has the twin features of attracting some of the best minds and at the same time being rejected by policymakers world over, even by those who had adopted them to begin with. These features are discussed in this article. It is argued that the first feature is because of the existence of inequality and its worsening and associated poverty, and the difficulty in the continued extraction of surplus is a possible explanation for the second. It is further argued that the labour theory of value is not really essential to the theory of exploitation of workers by capitalists, and we try to establish that Marx was way ahead of his time in setting up the worker–employer relation in modern terms.
AkerlofG. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Qualitative uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
2.
ArrowK. J. (1953). Le role des valeurs boursieres pour la repartition la meillure des risques. Econometrie. pp. 47–48 CNRS, Paris (English translation, The role of securities in the optimal allocation of risk bearing. Review of Economic Studies, 1964, 31, 91–96).
3.
ArrowK. J. (1963). Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Helsinki: The Yrjo Jahnsson Lectures.
4.
BowlesS. (2018 April 21). Marx modern microeconomics. VOX CEPR’s Policy Portal. Retrieved from https://voxeu.org/article/marx-mand-modern-microeconomics
5.
ChamberlinE. H. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition: A re-orientation of the theory of value (6th ed. in 1965). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
DesaiM.HenryB.MosleyA.PembertonM. (2006). On an Inconsistency in the Goodwin model of the growth cycle. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30(12), 2661–2670.
7.
DuttaS.MukherjiA. (2010). Goodwin’s growth cycles: A reconsideration. In BasuB.ChakrabartiB. K.ChakravartyS. K.GangopadhyayK. (Eds.) Econophysics, economics of games, social choice and quantitative techniques (New Economics Window Series, pp. 263–276). Helsinki: Springer.
8.
FujimoriY. (1982). Modern analysis of value theory (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems). Berlin: Springer.
9.
GoodwinR. M. (1967). A growth cycle. In FeinsteinC. H. (Ed.), Socialism, capitalism and economic growth (pp. 54–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
HeilbronerR. (1999). The worldly philosophers (7th ed., p. 152). New York, NY: Simon Schuster.
11.
JayarajD.SubramanianS. (2015 October 21). The coexistence of poverty and prosperity in India. Ideas for India. Retrieved from www.ideasforindia.in/topics/poverty-inequality/the-coexistence-of-prosperity-and-poverty-in-india.html
12.
KeynesJ. M. (1925). Soviet Russia. Nation and Athenaeum, 17, 19 and 24 October.
13.
KeynesJ. M. (1936). The general theory of employment interest and money. London: Macmillan.
14.
MorishimaM. (1974). Marx in the light of modern economic theory. Econometrica, 42(4), 611–632.
15.
MukherjiA. (1985). On some implications of the Separating Hyperplane Theorem. Keio Economic Studies, XXII(2), 57–71.
16.
MukherjiA. (2005). Robustness of closed orbits in a class of dynamic economic models. In LahiriS.MaitiP. (Eds.), Economic theory for a changing world, policy modelling for growth (pp. 137–152). Helsinki: Oxford University Press.
17.
MukherjiA. (2014). Is competitive behaviour a best response? In MarjitS.RajeevM. (Eds.), Emerging issues in economic development: A contemporary theoretical perspective (pp. 2–20). Helsinki: Oxford University Press.
18.
MukherjiA. (2015). Market failures: Almost always? In GuhaS.KunduR. P.SubramanianS. (Eds.), Contributions to economic theory, essays in honour of Satish Jain (pp. 3–28). Helsinki: Routledge.
19.
MukherjiA. (2018). Money and market failures: A theoretical perspective. In DastidarA. G.MalhotraR.SunejaV. (Eds.), Economic theory and policy amidst global discontent (pp. 184–197). London: Routledge.
20.
NashJ. (1951). Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54(2), 286–295.
21.
PikettyT. (2014). Capital in the twenty first century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
22.
PikettyT. (2018). Brahmin left versus merchant right: Rising inequality and the changing structure of political conflict (Evidence from France Britain and the U.S. 1948–2017). Retrieved from http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf
23.
RobinsonJ. (1933). The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.
24.
RobinsonJ.EatwellJ. (1973). An introduction to modern economics. London: McGraw-Hill.
25.
SamuelsonP. A. (1962). Economists and the history of ideas. American Economic Review, 52(1), 1–18.
26.
SamuelsonP. A. (1974). Marx as a mathematical economist. In HorwichG.SamuelsonP. A. (Eds.), Trade stability and macroeconomics, essays in honor of Lloyd A. Metzler (pp. 269–307). New York, NY: Academic Press.
27.
SubramanianS. (2018a June 28). 10-part study on inequality. LiveMint. Retrieved from www.livemint.com/opinion/HcU1Y9v0uRdFsk9nnhMZrm/Economic-inequality-in-india-and-the-world.html
28.
SubramanianS. (in press). Inequality and poverty: A short critical introduction for beginners. Springer.
29.
The Economist Magazine. (2014, May 5). Thomas Piketty’s ‘Capital’ summarised in four paragraphs in the Section. The Economist Explains. Retrieved from www.economist.com/the -economist-explains/2014/05/04/thomas-pikettys-capital-summarised-in-four-paragaphs
30.
von NeumannJ.MorgensternO. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
