Allen Oakley – författare

Volume One analyses the intellectual sources and evolution of Marx's critique of political economy leading up the writing of the main Capital manuscripts (1844-1860).The volume:* Provides a clear illustration of the contents of the texts in a way that enables readers to understand the intellectual influences on Marx* Clarifies Marx's own view of what he was trying to achieve through his critique of political economy* The themes of value, income distribution and the law of motion of capitalism are traced to their origins.

Volume Two covers the years 1861-1863, when Marx consolidated and refined the arguments of his critique of political economy in his relatively neglected manuscripts Theories of Surplus Value.* Special attention is paid to the nature, scope and limitations of Marx's critique and to the critique of Ricardo's Principles.

Volume One analyses the intellectual sources and evolution of Marx's critique of political economy leading up the writing of the main Capital manuscripts (1844-1860).The volume:* Provides a clear illustration of the contents of the texts in a way that enables readers to understand the intellectual influences on Marx* Clarifies Marx's own view of what he was trying to achieve through his critique of political economy* The themes of value, income distribution and the law of motion of capitalism are traced to their origins.

Volume Two covers the years 1861-1863, when Marx consolidated and refined the arguments of his critique of political economy in his relatively neglected manuscripts Theories of Surplus Value.* Special attention is paid to the nature, scope and limitations of Marx's critique and to the critique of Ricardo's Principles.

Marx’s written output was massive. Much of it remained unpublished in his own lifetime and there is still no complete edition of the extant works, although most have been published in one form or another. This book, first published in 1983, provides an analytical guide to the complex chronological and evolving substantive structure of Marx’s main writings in critical theory. The format is concise and accessible, with each phase of Marx’s evolving critical theory of capitalist society being summarized in a diagram. An invaluable guide for students of Marx, it will lead them through the maze of his works to a potentially deeper understanding of his thought. Allen Oakley believes that, in order to fully comprehend Marx’s critical theory, it is essential to trace its complex evolution. Any serious study of Marx’s critique of capitalism must begin with an appreciation of the bibliographical framework within which his evolving ideas were manifested. Oakley is opposed to approaches to the study of Marx’s critique which take little account of its chronology; such approaches, he believes, are incomplete and potentially misleading with respect to the meaning and significance of the critique. The book includes bibliographical evidence about the unfinished state of Marx’s critical project and its ever-changing scope and organization. It argues, therefore, that the methodological and substantive status of Capital must be interpreted cautiously, for bibliographical evidence shows it to be an unfinished climax to an ambiguous critic-theoretical project of uncertain dimensions. To read it as in any sense a final and definitive statement of Marx’s critical theory is, the author believes, to be deluded.

Marx’s written output was massive. Much of it remained unpublished in his own lifetime and there is still no complete edition of the extant works, although most have been published in one form or another. This book, first published in 1983, provides an analytical guide to the complex chronological and evolving substantive structure of Marx’s main writings in critical theory. The format is concise and accessible, with each phase of Marx’s evolving critical theory of capitalist society being summarized in a diagram. An invaluable guide for students of Marx, it will lead them through the maze of his works to a potentially deeper understanding of his thought. Allen Oakley believes that, in order to fully comprehend Marx’s critical theory, it is essential to trace its complex evolution. Any serious study of Marx’s critique of capitalism must begin with an appreciation of the bibliographical framework within which his evolving ideas were manifested. Oakley is opposed to approaches to the study of Marx’s critique which take little account of its chronology; such approaches, he believes, are incomplete and potentially misleading with respect to the meaning and significance of the critique. The book includes bibliographical evidence about the unfinished state of Marx’s critical project and its ever-changing scope and organization. It argues, therefore, that the methodological and substantive status of Capital must be interpreted cautiously, for bibliographical evidence shows it to be an unfinished climax to an ambiguous critic-theoretical project of uncertain dimensions. To read it as in any sense a final and definitive statement of Marx’s critical theory is, the author believes, to be deluded.

This book applies a critical focus on the extent to which methodological practices in mainstream economic theory impede our understanding of substantive economic phenomena as the products of human action. Economists, in general, work with a concept and representation of the human agent that is palpably unrealistic. Most do so, not out of ignorance, but rather to maintain the pretence that economics is the only true science among the social sciences because it enforces the use of rigorous and formalist methods of argument.Allen Oakley's inquiry pursues ideas of social ontology pertinent to reconstructing economic theory in a way that addresses this lack of realism. These ideas take the form of a revised metatheory for a humanistic economics in which priority is given to properly understanding and depicting the human origins of economic phenomena, rather than to meeting the imposed demands of scientistic rigour. Indeed, he demonstrates that many ontological ideas pertinent to such a reconstruction are extant in the literature of social philosophy and theory, a literature largely neglected by economic theorists.Economists and social scientists concerned about the nature and problems of mainstream economic theory will gain a great deal from reading this challenging book.

In Classical Economic Man, Allen Oakley argues that two of the fathers of modern economics espoused methodological strategies which rejected the concept of ‘economic man’ and gave primacy to the human origins of economic phenomena.Adam Smith and J.S. Mill are shown to have been sensitive to the need for a pluralistic methodology in economics, constructed in accordance with its demands as a strictly human science that must contend with the contingencies of situated human conduct. Each went on to explicitly confront this in their theoretical arguments and in the design of their economic policy strategies. Drawing extensively on the original literature, Professor Oakley demonstrates that Smith’s approach through moral philosophy, and Mill’s through psychology and the philosophy of science, alerted them to the problems of giving proper representation to human agents in formal, scientific analyses. Smith and Mill, it is argued, rejected a classical orthodoxy that required methodology to be driven by the ambition to emulate the epistemology of the physical sciences. Scholars and students of the history of economic methodology and doctrines will welcome this important study which builds upon the original arguments, extending the interpretation to include often neglected details about the nature of classical methodology and its use of the concept of the ‘economic man’.

This landmark book presents a critical study of the Austrian subjectivism of Menger and Mises and assesses their contribution in the light of contemporary philosophy of the human sciences.Allen Oakley lays emphasis on the subjectivism of Menger and Mises as the foundation of Austrian economics. By situating their work in the context of the philosophies of the human sciences evolving around them, he shows how these founders of the modern Austrian tradition failed to fully appreciate and to adopt the more penetrating subjectivism of their contemporaries. He argues that, as a result, they left their successors an incomplete and ambiguous metatheoretical legacy.For historians of economic thought and for economic philosophers and methodologists the book provides a critical study of a fundamental theme of Austrian economics that is still the subject of controversy today.