Making sense with Marx

I took a seminar taught by John Bowman a year or so ago at Queens College, New York titled “Rethinking Capitalism.” He was an excellent professor – very tolerant of my libertarian leanings.

I think Fligsteinian ‘markets as politics’ type of analysis is a much more sophisticated version of the base/superstructure kind of approach.

I’ve just been reading Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales’ Saving Capitalism from Capitalists, which is actually — without them realising it — pretty Fligsteinian. Their account relies on quite a bit on the distribution of wealth. It’s certainly a base/superstructure type of argument.

It’s interesting in that they explicitly recognise their proximity to both Marx and Stigler (they’re both from the University of Chicago).

Do CTites have any thoughts on what I thought to be a fascinating book — espacially as free-market books go?

Another book I find useful, though it isn’t really Marxist, is Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality.

Of course, I don’t think their phenomenological approach is popular anymore.

(sorry for the multiple posts the last time)

Bob: calling Marx “trite” and “naive” just shows you have neither read him nor thought about the issues he raises very deeply. And your apparent belief that politics is not influenced by class interests makes you out as the naive one. The fact that capitalists have some competing interests with other capitalists no more shows that they do not share an overarching class interest than the fact that my mother and I have some competing interests shows that we do not share some common interests as a family.

I am not a Marxist but peoples’ willingness to be dismissive of him without understanding the first thing about what made him a great social thinker always irritates me.

While all Marxists haven’t become methodological individualists, a fair number of them have, and arguably have greatly improved the rigor and clarity of Marxist thinking by so doing.

Fair enough, but I do like the work done by some other Marxists who could said to be more dialectical in nature. I think David Harvey’s “Limits to Capital” is a good way to get into the bearded one’s systems-building; though it is a bit dated itself and some of Harvey’s later stuff is relatively light. Of course not all those influenced by Marxist theory and who use it would refer to themselves as ‘Marxists’ of any kind; Bourdieu’s work is an example that comes to my mind and I think his “Distinction” is a brilliant piece of sociological writing and Coling Ley’s “Market Driven Politics” is an excellent outline of the impact Capital and the accomadations the ‘Third Way’ have had on various aspects of public services taking the health and public broadcasting services in the UK as case studies – though neither would call themselves Marxists despite being steeped in Marxian theory. Nigel Thrift has done some good stuff with Andrew Leyshon on the role of money and the international financial economy; though I suppose he would call himself a “Post-Marxist”; some of the more theoretically inclined economists, have built on the old ‘Regulation School’ theory and done some interesting things with it – Kotz and McDonough’s “Social Structures of Accumalation” has provided a schema which other economists have applied to their own sub-fields in a rewarding fashion. There are odd bits and pieces here and there; Justin Rosenberg’s dissection of Globalisation, some of Bryan Turner’s writings, China Mieville Stephen Abercrombie all have genuine insights and gems while the occasional furtive genuflection most ‘post-structuralist’ thinkers throw in the way of homage indicate a troubled relationship that still hasn’t quite sorted itself out.

“I think somebody needs to rewind the tape back up to Bentham and Mill or something, blockade Marx Avenue and choose a different path.”

I agree. I would like to see an alternate reality where Henry George developed his ideas as a conceptual approach to differientiating between community-produced income vs. individual intiative – produced income rather than devolving into what Marx rightly called single-issue “panacea mongering”. If much of the Left followed a “generic” Georgist approach (giving George roughly the same deference that “Marxist” scholars give Marx) of demanding the socialization of legal priviledge and focusing on ecconomic justice rather than ecconomic equality, the Left would be a lot more popular with average Americans and we would have a lot more of both economic justice AND economic equality (justice demanding, not true equality, but a hell of a lot more equality than we have today).

So what do you all think of this Proculian guy? (proculian.blogspot.com)

Marxist theory is really a late phenomenon, crystallizing in and after Marx’s Capital phase, then Engels’ redaction, then the Second Internationale.
One can admire the brilliance of the basic Marx but then fail to see the incoherence of his project as he got writer’s block (!), couldn’t finish the job, and handed the mess over to Engels. (read Siegel’s Marx’s Fate)
So what’s the best move now? Radical choice + Elster?(G.A.Cohen did the last gasp Marx repair,but is a Christian convert now!?) The Hegel Renaissance cookie jar? Not a rhetorical question. Somebody tell me.
There is another explanation, of course. Sometime during his Capital phase, Marx (secretly taking up Hegel again)realized that in fact the whole thing was a crock and that it didn’t matter much–as to theory. Marx in that regard is much overrated. Why not start over?
One answer is to start over at the beginning, the challenge to Hegel’s philosophy of right, and decide if it’s a good idea to abolish private property. The 1840’s. The theory, otherwise, isn’t relevant.
I note Bellamy’s Marx’s Ecology: the facts of the case are that Marx really saw a problem with Darwin. Then shut up and let Engels do his ‘science thing’. So either Marx is off the wall, or Darwinists are wrong. Marxism flunked its first test of ideology.

A response to humeidayer, who wonders about Marx’s continued relevance and asks for suggestions on Marxist readings.

1. Marx is antiquated and important.

2. One place to go for interesting *economic* research in a Marxist vein is the work by Herb Gintis and Sam Bowles. John Roemer is another of the more famous ‘analytic’ Marxists. These characters made some headway reconstructing arguments along lines inspired by Marx using the tools of contemporary social science. They strip away much that is antiquated and erroneous. They use rational choice theory, sophisticated mathematics, and game theory. They are not so easily dismissed.

2. The idea that Marshall’s economics was enough to undo Marx’s economic theories is wanting. It may be true that Marshall’s economics displaced classical economics. But Marshall’s economics had very little to say about economic change — where Marx’s work had many striking insights. Marx combined an interesting microeconomics (e.g. his emphasis on principal-agent problems on the shop floor) with many insightful institutional arguments. This allowed him to explore questions Marshall’s work does not even address. From Marshall forwards, the Anglo-American tradition in economics largely abandoned its concern with economic growth and the-wealth-of-nations questions — until after the second war.

3. It is striking — at times amusing — how certain species of Marxism still flourish in the humanities. But Marxist ideas are rightly influential in sociology and history.

4. I’d suggest Popper’s arguments apply relatively well to a particular formalised flavor of Marxism. But Marx’s work is significantly more slippery and open then that stuff.

Neil, Marx would have made a *fantastic* blogger. His quick-turnaround topical journalism is some of his best stuff. Reading it, you realize what a powerful, useful and *flexible* predictive tool his class based analysis was. To take just one example, he more or less nailed the eventual course of the American civil war in 1861 — predicting the freeing of the slaves, the total military victory of the North, and the importance and greatness of Lincoln as a leader well before these things were clear to other onlookers. He was a terrific writer too. I would love to see his analysis of contemporary issues. Believe me, Marx was miles away from whatver dry, washed up 20th century “scientific Socialists” who you may have seen.

JD, you are right on point. Bowles and Roemer are very good. Contemporary economic theory (especially labor economics) is actually full of theories that lend themselves to thinking about the nature of exploitation in a rather Marxist sense. It is silly to obsess about whether one is Marxist in the sense of 19th century “scientific socialism”, which really is antiquated and useless. But the spirit of Marx’s insights into power relations in capitalism, and the relationships between economics, ideology, and politics can still I think inspire very useful work. Not to mention his broader vision of capitalism’s internal contradictions.

Posted by Bob – I accept the suggestion that people will tend to act in what they perceive to be their personal or family interests and in some circumstances will act collectively to achieve their purpose. That is why we have political parties, trade unions, professional organisations and companies and probably why nation states continue to endure. But that rather trite observation doesn’t lead me to Marxism.

People don’t only act in their own best interests. Once their immediate survival and comfort needs are met they can and will frequently deny their own self interest and act collectively in ways that may reduce their personal wealth – be that supporting socialism, giving to charity, or not dodging their taxes – activities that seemingly have little or no personal reward.

People who are past the demands stage of their immediate survival needs, who are secure in their financial and social condition, act in the best interest of the species rather than of themselves.

In this we are good animals with instincts the same as any other animal – in our gut we know that personally we are all expendable but the race must endure, and whatever is best for the race as a whole individually we will embrace. This motivation makes up part of the allure and acceptance of the ideals of Marxism.

Btw – People who are still in the immediate survival fixation stage are usually conservatives ;)

Thanks for all the comments, everyone.

I’d suggest Popper’s arguments apply relatively well to a particular formalised flavor of Marxism. But Marx’s work is significantly more slippery and open then that stuff.

This reminds me of another subject I’d like to see discussed some time (Is there a CT suggestion box?).

George Soros has been in the news quite a bit lately. Soros is a very open follower of Popper, but in what I find an ironical twist, Soros believes that the greatest threat to the Open Society is not Marxism but rather capitalism.

I’m wondering what CT members and readers think of Soros (and while I’m thinkin about it, CBS refusing to air MoveOn.Org’s “Child’s Pay” ad).

neil: Marx had very little to say about what things would look like “after the revolution.” The vast bulk of his work, and virtually everything that’s of significance to contemporary Marxists, is devoted to explaining and critiquing capitalism, not laying out a blueprint for a socialist society. This is consistent with his rejection of “utopian” socialist theories and with the explanation offered by some of my Marxist colleagues that the structure of socialism would be worked out through the process of revolution.

I think a Marxist blogger would have a lot to say, relating the “surface appearance” of political and economic events to the underlying structural contradictions of the capitalist system.

My two cents worth:

Every society in the past century claiming to be founded on the principles of Marxism has wound up as a poverty-stricken totalitarian hellhole that has murdered its own citizens by the thousands or millions, and has had to erect barriers around its own nation to keep people from fleeing like animals from a forest fire.

Every single one.

Most Marxists puff up indignantly, and say something along the lines of this not being REAL Marxism, with said protests often accompanied by vast quantities of the verbal fog popular in academic circles.

Here’s how I see it:

If a doctor has killed every patient he has ever treated, it’s not that important to me that he has written forty books on medicine, has three medical degrees, and an IQ of 220. When I’m considering him for my own medical treatment, it’s certainly not important that I have read his books or not.

It’s long past time this particular form of collectivism was folded up and put on the shelf.

stentor,
If indeed Marx was more concerned with ripping apart capitalism than anything else, then I have little need to study him with any depth. I can read about capitalist failings anywhere. I am interested in those who can give me a better solution, any old fool can point out imperfections. Dont tell my problems, give me solutions, and while youre at it, make sure your solutions actually function.

tads,
It is true that people do not only act on their own personal interests. It is also true that people do not only act on the interests of society, their class, or their community. The thing that makes a philosophy viable in the real world, is its versatility and real life function. There are no major philosophies that can make the world perfect. We live in an imperfect world, therefore we need a system that can function in spite of this.

In the utopian world, where you have a set ideal of humanity, you can make just about any philosophy work flawlessly and build arguments to support it and to tear down other philosophies. In the real world, you must have a system with checks and balances to counter corruption, and with the ability to function within the widely varied choices of the individuals that make up any society. Capitalism, when not interfered with by the government, comes closer to this than anything I have seen. 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.

“It’s so impossible for these people to think about Marx as just another thinker and stop the histerics?”

The difference is that millions have been killed by governments claiming they were set on the path of building socialism to achieve communism because of the inspiration they got from reading Marx and the Marxists.

Estimates of the numbers of people killed by governments in socialist regimes are here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

But then, as Lenin said: You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Well, a little outbreak of anti-intellectual hysteria here. Marx wrote SCARY books, didn’t he? They can turn you EEEVVVIIILLL if you read them! Must not allow people to read them! Is he trite and uninteresting, or the devil incarnate? He can’t be both, can he?

The difference between Marx and Hitler is that Marx actually was a serious philosopher, and was dead long before any of the political movements which (mis)used his name to justify killing innocent people actually gained power. Hitler was not a serious philosopher, since he was too busy actually ordering the deaths of innocent people to do much philosophy. I know that’s one of those fuzzy academic distinctions, but it makes some sense if you hard think about it.

The bodies are stacked up like cordwood behind various capitalist modernizers too, but I don’t see anyone complaining about that. (If you want to cite a hundred million deaths in Marxist countries, that means you have to count every premature famine death in a capitalist run country too). For that matter, the Catholic Church committed genocide back in the day as well. I’m still gonna read the new testament, you can’t stop me.

If you want a guy who actually was a fairly serious intellectual (though nothing vaguely close to Marx) and also actively a murderer and a tyrant, try Lenin. A much more interesting case; the first true theorist of Communist totalitarianism.

I think Marx was absolutely correct.

Before you can get to Marxism you capitalism has to reach the point where profits (improvements in the production process) are no longer possible.

Not having reached that stage yet any one who says that we ought to practice Marxism now is not a Marxist. Of couse neither was Marx.

I think the modern way to understand Marx is that he was a science fiction author talking about what some far off future could be like.

Fine. You can study Marxist theory until you need bifocals. The rest of the world has left him behind. If the record of the last century of his followers hasn’t disillusioned you, I’m certainly not up to the job.

And if you really feel the need to tally body counts, I suggest this web site.

“The revolution will happen eventually.” Yeah, I hear from different true believers that Jesus is coming back too. I’m taking bets on which happens first.

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.)

“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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.