Peperell, Nicole. ”Beyond reification: Reclaiming Marx's Concept of the Fetish Character of the Commodity”. Kontradikce: A Journal for Critical Thought. https://kontradikce.flu.cas.cz/upload/__issues/kontradikce-2-49.pdf. ”The critical edge of Marx's analysis does not derive, therefore, from any sort of declaration that this impersonal social relation does not exist, or is not 'truly' impersonal. Instead, it derives from the demonstration of how such a peculiar and counter-intuitive sort of social relationMall:Snd one that possesses qualitative characteristics more normally associated with our interactions with non-social realityMall:Snd comes to be unintentionally generated in collective practice.”.
Murray, Patrick (March 2020). ”The Illusion of the Economic: Social Theory without Social Forms”. Critical Historical Studies 7 (1): sid. 19–27. doi:10.1086/708005. ISSN2326-4462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/708005. ”"Bourgeois or capitalist production . . . is consequently for [Ricardo]," Marx writes, "not a specific definite mode of production, but simply the mode of production." [...] The illusion of the economic arises within what Marx calls the "bourgeois horizon," which trades in phenomenologically false bifurcations such as the purely subjective versus the purely objective, form versus content, forces versus relatisusons of production, the labor process versus the valorization process, distribution versus production, and more.”.
eurozine.com
Ramsay, Anders (21 December 2009). ”Marx? Which Marx? Marx's work and its history of reception”. www.eurozine.com. https://www.eurozine.com/marx-which-marx/. ”When it is based on the naturalistic understanding, the entire theoretical edifice of the critique of political economy breaks down. What is left is a theory not entirely unlike Adam Smith's, one in which individual labour creates value, and the capacity to create value becomes an ontological determination of labour. With good reason, one could speak of a Smithian Marxism ...”
Ruskin, John. Unto this Last. sid. 128–129. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/36541/pg36541-images.html. ”Observe, I neither impugn nor doubt the conclusions of the science if its terms are accepted. I am simply uninterested in them, as I should be in those of a science of gymnastics that assumed that men had no skeletons. It might be shown, on that supposition, that it would be advantageous to roll the students up into pellets, flatten them into cakes, or stretch them into cables; and that when these results were effected, the re-insertion of the skeleton would be attended with various inconveniences to their constitution. The reasoning might be admirable, the conclusions true, and the science deficient only inapplicability. Modern political economy stands on a precisely similar basis. Assuming, not that the human being has no skeleton, but that it is all skeleton, it founds an ossifiant theory of progress on this negation of a soul; and having shown the utmost that may be made of bones, and constructed a number of interesting geometrical figures with death's-heads and humeri, successfully proves the inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul among these corpuscular structures. I do not deny the truth of this theory: I simply deny its applicability to the present phase of the world.”
”The Poverty of Philosophy - Chapter 2.1”. www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm. Läst 1 september 2021. ”When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any. There has been history, since there were the institutions of feudalism, and in these institutions of feudalism we find quite different relations of production from those of bourgeois society, which the economists try to pass off as natural and as such, eternal.”
Patterson, Orlando; Fosse, Ethan. ”Overreliance on the Pseudo-Science of Economics”. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/09/are-economists-overrated/overreliance-on-the-pseudo-science-of-economics. ”[...] the real-world implementation of mainstream economic ideas has been a string of massive failures. Economic thinking undergirded the "deregulation" mantra leading up to the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and has fared no better in attempts to "fix" the ongoing crisis in Europe. [...] nowhere is the discipline's failure more apparent than in the area of development economics. In fact, the only countries that have effectively transformed from the "Third" to the "First World" since World War II violated the main principles of current and previous economic orthodoxies: [...] Only recently have economists come to accept the primacy of institutions in explaining and promoting economic growth, a position long held by sociologists [...]” (OpEd)
Henderson, Willie (2000). John Ruskin's political economy. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-15946-2. OCLC48139638. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48139638. ”[...]Ruskin attempted a methodological/scientific critique of political economy. He fixed on ideas of ‘natural laws’, ‘economic man’ and the prevailing notion of ‘value’ to point out gaps and inconsistencies in the system of classical economics.”
Murray, Patrick (March 2020). ”The Illusion of the Economic: Social Theory without Social Forms”. Critical Historical Studies 7 (1): sid. 19–27. doi:10.1086/708005. ISSN2326-4462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/708005. ”"Bourgeois or capitalist production . . . is consequently for [Ricardo]," Marx writes, "not a specific definite mode of production, but simply the mode of production." [...] The illusion of the economic arises within what Marx calls the "bourgeois horizon," which trades in phenomenologically false bifurcations such as the purely subjective versus the purely objective, form versus content, forces versus relatisusons of production, the labor process versus the valorization process, distribution versus production, and more.”.
