Link to an article by John Molyneux:
“How Fast is the Climate Changing?”
“That the capitalist class is most interested in protecting its power, position, wealth and way of life means that the struggle to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of global warming is a class struggle. It is a struggle for power — not a struggle over morality or individual consumer choices. The capitalist class holds out the promise of ‘more of the same’ because that is the way that it can continue to accumulate wealth while working people get the same raw deal of exploitation, racism and oppression that they have for centuries.”
Jodi Dean, “Climate Change Is Class War”
See also “Global Warming and U.S. National Security Diplomacy” and “The Discovery and Rediscovery of Metabolic Rift” and “Endangered Species Act: A Failure Worth Fighting For?”
Link to an article by Jason Hirthler:
“Vote Blue for Better Wage Slavery”
Link to an interview with Dick Bryan & Mike Rafferty, conducted by Llewellyn Williams-Brooks:
“How Finance Exploits Us”
(Note: the first part of the interview is non-substantive background information about publishing this theory in book form, and the substantive discussion of the theory is toward the end).
See also: Michael Hudson, especially “From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital”, and “We Have Nothing to Lose but Our Debts”, and The Debt Collective
Link to an article by Blair Fix, Jonathan Nitzan & Shimshon Bichler:
“Real GDP: The Flawed Metric at the Heart of Macroeconomics”
Real-World Economics Review, Issue 88, P. 51 (July 10, 2019)
Like everything in the Real-World Economics Review, this article really is an attack on the hegemony of neoclassical (i.e., anti-classical) economics. The main points this article makes therefore tacitly draw from classical economics, such as the distinction between use value and exchange value that was explained by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. Of course, these authors make no mention of Marx. They also suggest energy units as one alternative to GDP, similar to a concept promoted by R. Buckminster Fuller three or four decades ago but no such precedents are acknowledged in the article. They also normatively accept a “growth” model. There is a degree of self-promotion in this article, and it only briefly explains the ideological battle driving their critique. But the narrow technical points it makes are mostly sound.
See also “The GDP Illusion: Value Added versus Value Capture”