The U.S. issued the warning on Thursday, the same day Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in India after concluding a two-day visit to China.
Addressing this point, Michael Hudson is a Marxist economist, what are you talking about. He has expanded much further, of course, and is a pioneering member of the MMT circle (which is composed of a bunch of heterodox economists of Marx, Lerner and Minsky traditions). His books have no shortage of analyses using Marx and Lenin (though he does warn that the Leninist view on imperialism is no longer adequate because of how finance capitalism has changed since WWI).
I am not an expert so this is just what I picked up from casual reading:
-It is not worth discussing MMT, it is entirely a anti-Marxist theory in every conceivable way. You can't seriously advocate for it and still call yourself a Marxist. At the very least support for MMT should come with severe disclaimers about the inherent problems. Indeed for many the inherent problems make MMT a non-starter.
I am not sure why you think his MMT work supports his position as a Marxist, associating with other Marxists/heterodox economists is fine, but also not the point?
-He considers himself a "classical" economist like Marx. This is very much different from how every other marxist describes themselves, why not call himself a Marxist straight up?
-People can call themselves whatever they want. Varofoukis called himself an "erratic Marxist" at one point lol.
-His about page on this website makes no mention of Marx.
-Of all the articles I've read from him recently he makes zero mentions of the Marxist understanding of crises(the failing rate of profit) and how that relates with current events. In fact if you weren't already aware you'd never know Marx has anything to say about late stage capitalism from his recent articles. My critique is that his geopolitical points are not the holy grail but just a good part of the puzzle.
-I don't particularly regard Harvey all that highly, he has been in quite controversial grounds with his Marxism in recent times.
deleted by creator
I am not an expert so this is just what I picked up from casual reading:
-It is not worth discussing MMT, it is entirely a anti-Marxist theory in every conceivable way. You can't seriously advocate for it and still call yourself a Marxist. At the very least support for MMT should come with severe disclaimers about the inherent problems. Indeed for many the inherent problems make MMT a non-starter. I am not sure why you think his MMT work supports his position as a Marxist, associating with other Marxists/heterodox economists is fine, but also not the point?
-He considers himself a "classical" economist like Marx. This is very much different from how every other marxist describes themselves, why not call himself a Marxist straight up?
-People can call themselves whatever they want. Varofoukis called himself an "erratic Marxist" at one point lol.
-His about page on this website makes no mention of Marx.
-Of all the articles I've read from him recently he makes zero mentions of the Marxist understanding of crises(the failing rate of profit) and how that relates with current events. In fact if you weren't already aware you'd never know Marx has anything to say about late stage capitalism from his recent articles. My critique is that his geopolitical points are not the holy grail but just a good part of the puzzle.
-I don't particularly regard Harvey all that highly, he has been in quite controversial grounds with his Marxism in recent times.
He has some incredibly shitty takes on China and imperialism as a whole.You can find a lot about his takes here is a good example. MONTHLY REVIEW: The Ideology of Late Imperialism .
Harvey seems hell bent on being controversial, example here. and here. You can read the comments on both and reach your own conclusion.
I'd even consider Richard Wolff as someone far more useful and correct despite his own absurd takes recently.
Do you have a citation on this? I'm actually curious now.