That quote definitely does show the writer making a more typical Economist-style point: that any ideas of which Marx would approve are thereby bad. The title, however, seems aimed more at hoisting leftists on their own ideological petard, and pointing out that even the leftist Marx thought the argument for domestic vs. foreign ownership was based on a canard. Could it be that the titlewriter and the author are not exactly on the same page?

“The idea that it is somehow in the French national interest that a utility should not become owned by an Italian firm, or in the American interest that ports be kept out of Arab hands, is one to gladden the heart of Karl Marx. His view was that ownership, and hence the power to exploit, was all; hence socialist governments’ fateful desire to nationalise the ‘commanding heights’ of their own economies.”

That quote definitely does show the writer making a more typical Economiststyle point: that any ideas of which Marx would approve are thereby bad. The title, however, seems aimed more at hoisting leftists on their own ideological petard, and pointing out that even the leftist Marx thought the argument for domestic vs. foreign ownership was based on a canard. Could it be that the titlewriter and the author are not exactly on the same page?

Untypical?

Excuse me, but that rag encouraged Americans to vote GW Bush, and supported the Iraq war when it was still in the incubation phase (and thereafter).

Most people I know think many Economist articles are written by interns, and not read through by adults.

Needless to say, few of us subscribe any more.

Steve

Actually, seeing the quote there, I had the thought that Dan did in #16 – that quote looks to me to say that Marx is suggesting that blocking foreign takeovers is deceitful, and that thus we should support free trade. Of course, I haven’t either read the article or the Marx passage they’re quoting, so I shouldn’t say anything.

Horowitz, et. al. would obviously win, especially if the subject veers anywhere near the views of leftist theoreticians. A more interesting contest would be exclusive to sources like The Economist, who should know better.

“The idea that it is somehow in the French national interest that a utility should not become owned by an Italian firm, or in the American interest that ports be kept out of Arab hands, is one to gladden the heart of Karl Marx. His view was that ownership, and hence the power to exploit, was all; hence socialist governments’ fateful desire to nationalise the ‘commanding heights’ of their own economies.”

How many historical and conceptual errors can be squeezed into a couple of sentences? We should have a contest.

I’m puzzled Henry. Isn’t that precisely the leader writer’s point? Granted, it is odd for The Economist, of all magazines, to trot out Marx to provide rhetorical ammunition in support of some point they want to make. But I took it that the writer was suggesting that, according to Marx, protectionist efforts to thwart foreign takeovers are not genuinely motivated by lofty conceptions of the “national interest”, but are really just dishonest and deceptive populist appeals by domestic capitalists aimed at protecting their own private interests.

The writer’s somewhat ham-handed rhetorical strategy here seems to be to resist economic nationalism coming from the left by noting that even a presumed “hero of the left” like Marx thought economic nationalism was a scam.

Of course The Economist wants to turn that point about the politics of domestic capitalism toward the defense of globlization, wheras Marx would have thought that globalized capitalism is no better, or less deceptive and exploitative, than the domestic variety.

Possibly some people also confuse Marx with central planning, and so construct a market-antimarket divide that way.