Comments on: Making sense with Marx

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:56:04 +0000

George, if I were going to pin the blame for the 20th century communist death toll on one person, I’d choose Lenin. My impression is that most or all communist revolutions have venerated him and saw the Bolshevik model as something to be followed. Which would mean they’d think that secret police and concentration camps and torture and rule by a small inner circle who “knew” the correct path were all necessary to build utopia. Oh, btw, I think Mike Davis (the “Late Victorian Holocausts” author) might be a Marxist, but I think he still makes a damning case against the British in India. I haven’t read Marx, so I don’t know to what extent Lenin’s methods could be blamed on him. But as a Christian I know how the New Testament has been used to justify slavery, anti-semitism, witch trials, persecution of heretics, religious wars and so forth, so I’m at least inclined to listen when someone says Marx isn’t to blame for what his followers did.

By: harry

harry — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:24:48 +0000

Why do the anti-Marxists have so much invested in attacking a view that they think has been so completely trounced? bq. why should anyone believe people calling themselves Marxists, or claiming to be influenced by Marx, now; why should they have any credibility at all? Why shouldn’t we rather laugh them off the stage? Or, why shouldn’t we do what we do with everyone else: judge their conclusions by the quality of their evidence and arguments? Very curious why we’d do otherwise.

By: George Stewart

George Stewart — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:37:58 +0000

Donald, Well, it is an interesting subject for sure, and I’d have to check the book to make any more cogent statements, but you haven’t said anything to ease my scepticism that there’s any sort of equivalence between the two types of cases in terms of hardcore ideologues trying to implement their respective politico-economic ideals. (And I’m not so sure about Schama, but Sen is patently a kind of Leftist – or, put it this way, I’m sure, at the very least, he’d express the same kind of respect for Marx as a thinker as you guys here do – and you haven’t denied that this guy Davis is.) Anyway, I don’t see that anyone has even touched the main point: when you have two societies with roughly similar cultures, try classical liberal prescriptions in one and Marxist, or Marx-influenced prescriptions in the other. Which do you think will prosper, given what happened last century? I mean, I hope we’re not naive enough to expect perfection in either case, but surely the record’s clear enough in broad terms? So: which revolutionary movement is it worth pursuing, expanding, refining, etc.? One which largely fulfilled its own promises, or one which failed to fulfil its own promises? Once again: Marxism was supposed to improve things, to be a better kind of revolution. Marx started as a classical liberal and obviously believed his system was (at the very least) an improvement on classical liberalism. But however interesting Marxism may be intellectually, in practical terms, in terms of being a shinier, newer, better kind of revolution that brings prosperity to more people, as it was advertised to be, Marxism was an abject failure (at least, as practiced by people who evidently thought of themselves as Marxists, who seized political power). So: why should anyone believe people calling themselves Marxists, or claiming to be influenced by Marx, now; why should they have any credibility at all? Why shouldn’t we rather laugh them off the stage?

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:12:11 +0000

George, Amartya Sen and Simon Schama (sp?) aren’t “Marxoids”, and they endorsed the historical accuracy of the Davis book. There were massive famines under the British, who claimed to be free marketeers, (whatever Smith might have thought about them if he’d been around to see) and the extremely high death tolls were the consequence of their policies. Anyway, Smith and Marx, whatever their flaws, aren’t to blame for the famines caused by their self-proclaimed followers.

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:28:38 +0000

tads, Best places to live according to whom? Based on what? Geographical location, availability of goods (something almost entirely preferential in nature), Physical beauty, freedom of choice and action, ability to succeed (unless the places are only best to live if you are independantly wealthy) and a hot of other things define the “best places” to live, and these things vary from person to person. I dont care what some guy wrote in a travel magazine or some other publication because personal preference is inarguably the biggest factor in a choice of that nature. It certainly has nothing to do with the viability of a politico-economic system. Read “Of Paradise and Power” sometime, there are some interesting insights on why some places in the world have been able to operate in the manner they have so successfully. I find that there is a place for government to keep those that would use their resources to steal the freedoms of others from doing so. I find no place for government to be a charitable organization. Those of us who care about our fellowman can do a far better job caring for them by taking some personal responsibility and doing it as individuals and groups, not as voting masses forcing everyone with money to give to those who dont have any.

By: Tads

Tads — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:59:22 +0000

To the few people saying Socialism doesn’t work – are you still saying that to people who live in mixed-market economies that have traditionally been called Socialist? Because we’ll call you liars :) A good blend of government market monitoring, analysis and direction, government responsibility in areas that should not be for profit enterprises like education, defence and health, and markets everywhere else is the best way to benefit from the strengths of both capitalism and socialist-style planning. That’s what most of us have. Considering the fix or six countries that outrank the US as the best places in the world to live are also basically socialist it’s a strange view you have of socialism. Or were you using socialism to mean communism when the two are not even close to the same thing ?

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 04:32:24 +0000

Mg, “Bob: If you’d read either Marx or any of the great sociologists / historians influenced by him you’d understand why Babylon was not capitalist. Markets are old and universal; capitalism is not.” That comment is based on Marx’s typology of successive class struggles, which no one is obligated to accept as a framework beyond dispute. Markets are an effective, institutional means of resolving the conflicting interests of buyers and sellers. That basic conflict of interest obviously worried Marx or he would not have said that the conflict would inevitably be superceded by communism, a mythical state in which everyone worked according to their ability and took what they needed. As for just what constitutes what we choose to call capitalism and when that started, both are arguable. There was a substantial wool export trade out of England to mainland Europe in the 13th century. Towns like Norwich became affluent by it. By 1500, half the land in England had been enclosed. But long before that, the Phoenicians traded their way around the Mediterranean and beyond in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. Whether we elect to label either capitalistic is a matter of choice. Marx did write: Philosophers [he might have used: economists] have sought to interpret the world but the real task is to change it, which rather makes it clear that his agenda was tendentious. It was Marx’s way of eking a family living from subventions by Engels, who ran a successful family textile business in Manchester, and occasional journalism. Obviously, manufacturing products in factories, as developed in the industrial revolution, differs in respect of technology and business relationships from producing primary materials like the tin exported from Britain in Roman times or, again, the exports of wool in medieval times. The point is that factory production evolved in the context of a functioning market economy without state ownership, direction or even much control. It is not self-evident why that model can’t continue to be replicated.

By: George Stewart

George Stewart — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 02:51:29 +0000

People are born unequal – unequal endowments in all sorts of areas. Is it just to treat people differently because of this? No, because justice treats people at a high level of abstraction (the level at which they are human beings). That’s what it means to have a humanistic view, a universalist view; that’s what gets us out of the swamp of tribalism, favouritism, prejudice, privilege. It is a distortion of the concept of justice to treat people differently based on whatever fruits they may obtain based on their varying endowments. To treat people differently in this way isn’t “social justice” because it isn’t any kind of justice. It’s simply bias: actually injustice. It would be more honest to take a Robin Hood approach and just admit you want to steal from the rich to give to the poor. But honesty has never been a socialist strong point. As regards Victorian holocausts, it’s a subject I know little about, although I’m aware of several. However, I’m inclined to doubt Marxoid claims that they were perpetrated in pursuit of politico-economic theories. At any rate, even if they were, self-proclaimed Marxists have done their fare share of “ethnic cleansing” and the like in the name of their theories, so I rather think that side of things cancels out. What remains is the utter uselessness of Marxist or Marx-influenced remedies when it comes to putting bread on the table for the bulk of the populations where those remedies have been tried. The point stands: the bourgeois revolution is the only revolution that has ever come even close to making good its claims. People claiming to be socialists who have taken political power have promised to do better: they have spectacularly failed to do so. Time to move on. Therefore, improvement, refinement clarification of the bourgeois programme seems to be a more fruitful direction for progressive thought. The early Marx is definitely worth reading as a kind of poetic, maybe even (in the very long run, a la Ian Banks’ s-f) prophetic philosophy; the later, pseudo-scientific (and in scientific terms, disproven) Marx is mere entertainment.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:23:50 +0000

Actually, the Brits killed Indians by the millions in famines with their crackpot economic theories, much as Stalin or Mao did in their respective countries. See Mike Davis’s book “Late Victorian Holocausts”, or if you don’t want to read it, track down the favorable review it got from Amartya Sen in the NYT, or the passing mention Simon Schama (sp?) gave it last summer in the New Yorker while reviewing a biography of Curzon.

By: MQ

MQ — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:57:42 +0000

Bob: If you’d read either Marx or any of the great sociologists / historians influenced by him you’d understand why Babylon was not capitalist. Markets are old and universal; capitalism is not. Tbrosz: Now you’ve fallen back on the silliest type of anti-intellectualism—I don’t know what I’m talking about and I’m proud of it, damnit! Marx was not a Communist and you don’t really read him to understand communism. You read him to improve your understanding of capitalism.

By: tbrosz

tbrosz — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:46:32 +0000

Neil: I don’t need a “deep understanding” of the flaws of Marxist thought any more than I need a degree in physics to know that if I drop an anvil off a cliff it will proceed downwards, or a medical doctorate to know that bashing someone repeatedly on the head with a crowbar will not be a good thing for them. The evidence on this philosophy has been in for a long, long time. I understand the need of some people to keep defending Marx. They have a lot invested in it. I would expect similar behavior from someone who has spent twelve hard years getting an advanced degree in Phlogiston Chemistry, and spends most of his time hanging around with others who have done the same thing. He’s not going to want to hear anything about oxygen. At some point, I suppose either these people will grow up and go out into the real world, or get tenure.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:32:01 +0000

“Capitalism as a system will not last forever” Hammurabi’s law code for Babylon in the 18th century BC is here: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM The code contains elements of commerical law and a statutory prices and incomes policy besides family law. We can infer that markets and private property have been going a long time. I can’t foresee that ending anytime soon.

By: humeidayer

humeidayer — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:53:33 +0000

In addition, one of the primary foundational concepts of capitalism is individual freedom, allowing for those that think only of their own interests, and those that think of others, to coincide in balance. As far as the game of capitalism goes, a small few are born with most the game pieces while the great many are born with very few pieces, if any. The changes that have been made to the estate taxes here in America will only make this worse. Predictions for continued growth in the service industries are in order. In addition, admittedly, some people can’t play the game very well, which without interference (seems to me a market truly free of government interference looks like Somalia), will relegate some individuals to working 16 hours a day 7 days a week just to stay alive. Many people don’t consider that a very just society, which is what led so many reformers to deviate away from it in the first place.

By: George Stewart

George Stewart — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:00:32 +0000

It’s true that Marx is an interesting read, a subtle thinker, and all the rest of it. The 1844 manuscripts can be read, as somebody said above, as a kind of science fiction – indeed, if you read Ian Banks’ science fiction, you can see the attractiveness of that vision. Capitalism as a system will not last forever; granted we survive, “better” things will replace it, probably involving high technology (although the fact that one can’t envisage an attractive socialism without the deus ex machina of such high techlology is telling). But it’s also true, unfortunately, that whenever people have tried to, or claimed to try to implement socialism on any sort of large or complete scale, it has turned to shit. This has to be faced. It’s no good trying to make some trite “moral equivalence” argument at this point, becuase the strict equivalent – say, the implementation of Locke’s ideas in the American Revolution – have, by comparison, been a stunning success. Let me put this in even plainer terms: classical liberalism was a successful revolutionary movement, Marxism – supposed to be an improvement, a shiny, newer, better revolution – has been a failure, an abject, miserable, total failure. In even plainer terms: socialism was a blind alley. Those who are interested in the betterment of humankind should retrace their steps back to classical liberalism and try and improve that, make it work better, speed it up, etc. (This same choice point can be seen in Marx’s life: what turned him to socialism was seeing how liberal principles had been misused. At that point, he could have tried to reform liberalism, make it work better. Instead, he went down the silly 19th century route of being fashionably “original”. Ah, everybody had to “overturn” everything else in those days: you weren’t anybody until you’d stood something on its head. In retrospect, it can be seen how silly that mania was. Truth can be found; it can also be lost in the search for novelty.)

By: neil

neil — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:01:10 +0000

What an unpredictable, witty comparison, which truly reflects a deep understanding of the flaws in Marxist thought.