Comments on: Explaining Marx to newbies

By: Henri Vieuxtemps

Henri Vieuxtemps — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:51:58 +0000

J Edgar Hoover-approved Marx to newbies. Funny stuff. (linked by infinite thØught)

By: Martin Bento

Martin Bento — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:44:49 +0000

notsneaky, the crux of the matter is that women can be made, according to feminist theory, to sympathize with a system that oppresses them. I haven’t read “The Subjection of Women”, so I don’t know if it really applies, but that appears to be the argument Ted is putting forth, and, if Mill did say that, it is a good point. That is hardly like preferring one sports team to another, which is not sympathy against your own interest, and it is much like Marx, who certainly did not suppose, as Matt seems to think (unless I’m misreading him), that the only thing keep the proletariat from siding with their own best interest (as Marx saw it) was brute force. In fact, Marx seemed to think the proletariat would win once it came to brute force, hence the confidence in the eventual prospects of revelution. As for the notion that workers support Capitalism because they do better under it than any other system, that contradicts neither Marx nor Ted. Marx thought another system was possible under which workers would do better. You may disagree with this, but that should not color your presentation of what Marx thought. Whether what Marx thought is true is also a valid subject for such a class, but it should follow a presentation of the ideas that aims to simply get them across as clearly as possible. This is the problem with Delong.

As for the lack of sympathy for patriarchy among women, times have much changed since Mill’s day, mostly because of feminism. Now, even the conservatives can have a women as a standard bearer (Palin), and the fact is subject to no visible criticism even within that caucus, even though it would be extremely hard to defend from the perspective either of the Bible or of longstanding Western traditions.

By: engels

engels — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:58:56 +0000

Oh, and much as I would love to respond to your penetrating criticism that simply because I call myself a Marxist I must ‘insist… that everything (Marx) wrote (is) the gospel truth which (doesn’t) need amending, expending, or correcting’ I am going to have to pass. Maybe a patient Darwinist or Keynsean economist can explain that one to you.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:53:35 +0000

Radek, have you read Mill’s The Subjection of Women? Because from the way you describe it here it looks an awful lot like you haven’t. Mill is a liberal, not a radical feminist, of course (though not all agree- some seeing elements quite like radical feminism in his account), and his account isn’t just like Marx’s, but for your reply to work there would have to be no account in TSW about why women often accept(ed) their subordinate status for reasons other than fear of force. But if you’d read it, you’d know that’s something Mill is pretty interested in.

By: engels

engels — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:31:10 +0000

The kind of ~~Marxism~~ liberalism that is done by folks like ~~Cohen and Roemer~~ Rawls and Nozick looks a lot different from the ~~Marxism of Marx, from the Marxism of his immediate successors, or the Marxism as understood by most self identified Marxists today (in English, Anthropology etc. departments~~ liberalism of Locke or Montesquieu, from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers, or liberalism as understood by most self-identified liberals today (in English departments, law schools, the NYRB, Amnesty International, etc). And IMNSHO the ~~Marxism~~ liberalism that is done by folks like ~~Cohen and Roemer~~ Rawls and Nozick is a very respectable endeavor and worthy of pursuit. Whether, at the end of the day, you want to call it ~~Marxism or just Marx-inspired~~ liberalism or just liberal inspired is just semantics.

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:22:04 +0000

No sleight on Mill (though your interpretation of him is another matter), but that’s a horrible argument. It may be right in some particular circumstances, but as an argument, it’s, h, o, r, r, i, b, l, e.. The reason why it’s a horrible argument is that the (unstated) implications of the two quoted statements are the same, but they are actually two entirely different things. So the (unstated) implications are not really the same. The problem is that that kind of argument can be applied to pretty much anything:
p1 “But Ted doesn’t like the Ohio Buckeyes, he supports the Michigan Wolverines!”
a “Yes, just like women opposed (and oppose) feminism and support patriarchy”

p2”But Ted doesn’t like Crooked Timber, he actually reads Brad DeLong”
a “Yes, just like women opposed (and oppose) feminism and support patriarchy”

p3”But Ted isn’t a fan of the Blues, he supports the Greens”
a “Yes, just like women opposed (and oppose) feminism and support patriarchy”

p4”But Ted is a cat person, not a dog person”
a “Yes, just like women opposed (and oppose) feminism and support patriarchy”

It’s basically a trick to try to win an argument by associating something with something completely irrelevant, and it’s cheap and low down too because it refuses to actually state its premises directly – the supposed conclusion, the a) part, the “Yes, just like women…” being said in a sarcastic tone (obviously) and the more nasal your intonation the less sense you actually have to make here.

This is aside from the fact that, whatever Mill says about the prevelance of the female fifth column within the feminist movement, it probably really ain’t there that much. One way or another, most women don’t like to be oppressed just like, crazily enough, no other persons like to be oppressed. I’ve known a plenty of women in my life time (no, really!). Only like 2 of them supported the patriarchy. Maybe 4 had mixed feelings. The vast washed, manicured, and groomed masses of the double X chromosome carriers were very much against it. The unwashed ones too, but on this hippy blog that’s taken as already understood and a given.

Anyway, it’s actually possible that 1) workers are exploited and 2) workers support capitalism because they gain from it, relative to any other system devised by man.
This is the key (and the serious part here) – which makes it different from the supposed feminism example.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:41:55 +0000

I find that doing Mill’s “Subjection of Women” before Marx helps. Students will eagerly agree that women resisted their own emancipation, that what it means to be a man or a woman is socially constructed, that it’s better for the oppressor if the oppressed don’t recognize their oppression, etc which makes it easier to make the point that Marx believes these things to be true of the proletariat. “But workers don’t act like they’re being exploited – they support capitalism!” “Yes, just like women opposed (and oppose) feminism and support patriarchy.”

By: Will Roberts

Will Roberts — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:26:42 +0000

Just to add a slightly different angle on something that everyone’s probably sick of talking about anyway:

I would say that Marx’s “LTV”—that is, the claim that value of x is determined by the socially necessary labour requisite to produce x—is a) absolutely essential to his understanding of capital, and b) right, right, right, but also c) just not the sort of thing economists are looking for.

As several people have noted, the LTV doesn’t predict prices. But Marx is not trying to predict prices. Thus, Cohen et al. are wrong to try to reconstruct Marx on a different basis, Delong is wrong to be so dismissive, and Marxists like me have to do a better job of explaining what Marx is actually up to in his critique of economics.

By: MNPundit

MNPundit — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:51:43 +0000

Did you say anything about how he was reincarnated as a stuffed Tiger?

By: ejh

ejh — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:43:52 +0000

(Sorry about that. That was supposed to be in response to “that’s what you teach to the newbies. This thinker was wrong, but in interesting ways” at #130. )

By: ejh

ejh — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:40:53 +0000

I think in order to teach that somebody’s wrong you have to prove they’re wrong, which is probably beyond the scope of economics to actually do. (As per hidari at #110. When you can get economists to agree on something in the way that scientists agree on something, hidari will be wrong.)

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:36:01 +0000

BTW, john, while I do poke fun at your literary style, please realize that I do read your comments carefully, dearth of paragraphs and all, and appreciate your thoughts even as I disagree with them.

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:31:01 +0000

“Have you ever actually worked a factory job? Or managed a factory?”

Yes. No.

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:27:25 +0000

“Anyway, let me see if I’ve got it straight:”

Nope, you got it crooked. In particular this:

“3) We shouldn’t teach Marx.”

has never been said, asserted, implied or hinted at. The discussion is about how to teach Marx not whether to teach him or not. I’m getting a bit tired of responding to all the strawmen arguments so I’ll let some of them pass.

john halasz,
“There’s nothing you’re saying there that I don’t already know. ”

Hey, right back at you.

By: notsneaky

notsneaky — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:23:12 +0000

Oh I’m also down with some of that Base/Superstructure thing. If taken with some salty caveats.