Rand and Marx

[aelf]

i like how one is called "atlas throws the world away"

 

[Traitorfish]

As long as we are on the topic of Marx, how much influence did Malthus's 'dismal science' predictions and the Utopian Socialists have on him?

Malthus influenced was very strictly limited. He and Engels did accept certain of his predictions as feasible, but regarded his actual theories as both factually incorrect and morally abhorrent. Those similarities which exist are largely because of a shared debt to earlier classical economists, rather than because of any overlap in their own innovations.

The influence of the utopian socialists on Marx was pretty complex, not least because they themselves were very varied in their actual ideas- their categorisation in a single set doesn't date back any further than Marx himself- but he dervies some key ideas at least in part from their work, like the critique of private property from Proudhon and the critique of a static human nature from Owen. If you ever get a chance and the iclination, I'd recommend the essay "Marx, Engels and pre-Marxian Socialism" by Eric Hobsbawm, in the anthology How To Change the World, which is a pretty thorough overview of the topic.

I think it is a bit of an odd comparison to make.
Marx's philosphy had an enormous impact on the 20th century, Rand wrote a few books.

It's like comparing Lionel Messi to an obscure league 2 player.

Oh, granted, but there are just enough rough parallels between the two that it seemed an interesting thread topic, not least that they're two of the few figures about whom comments like this:

Except Marx was wrong.

Are something that a large number of people seem to think are actually meaningful, when they would never say the same of, say, Rosseau or Burke.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Similarly, the influences are elaborated upon in To the Finland Station by Edmund Wilson, which is also useful because the chapters on Marx and Engels follow chapters on Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Enfantin, Babeuf, Taine, and Renan, so the back story, as it were, is freshly present in your mind and accessible.

 

[.Shane.]

Hmmm.... well, Bioshock was pretty fun, so I'm going w/ Rand.

 

[Tahuti]

Hmmm.... well, Bioshock was pretty fun, so I'm going w/ Rand.

What about Red Alert?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Atlas Shrugged was on the NY Times bestseller list for 21 weeks when it first came out.

Thomas Cahill was on the list for two freaking years.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

So Dan Brown is an influential philosopher as well now?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thomas Cahill was on the list for two freaking years.

Atlas Shrugged is fiction.

 

[knez]

Class analysis.

Which he did not invent, but took over from other people and tried to squeeze into his world view. In the process, he dropped those who control the state vs. those who are exploited by the state and put his capitalists vs. workers. He never really managed (or tried) to explain other classes. He never proved that all workers have or follow the same interests, or that all of his capitalists have or follow the same interests. That means that he never proved that there are only 2 classes in capitalism, an that was essential for "scientific" proof that history will one day move to the third stage or whatever.

The greatest Marx's contribution was the explanation of where the profit of a company comes from.

EDIT: I'm not communist.

Marx couldn't grasp importance of capital in production, let alone explain where do profits come from. (In Marxism, wages are always at subsistence level because capitalists exploit their workers as much as that can. Also, wages are falling to the subsistence level, and when they do communist revolution will ensue. Seriously ???? But also, profits are falling in the long run. So, bot wages and profits are falling in the long run. No, I mean SERIOUSLY ??????????????)

P.S. You are

Coincidentally we're reading Marx in my current Sociology class which has the purpose of educating us about the foundations of sociology (the thinkers being Durkheim, Marx and Weber fwiw). So I'll do my best to summarize some salient contributions of his:
1. One idea is that Marx's economic analysis expresses a fundamental, basic outlook on the social world, i.e. that economic forces control the development of culture and society. There's not a great way to disprove this but it is still a hugely credited notion within the social sciences.

Another moronic idea.* Total determinism. It actually goes something like this:
Technology -> organization of production -> social structure -> ideas.
While social structure does have some effects on ideas, it also goes the other way.

*One of the founding stones of the whole philosopy

2. Class analysis has played a big part in politics but a huge part in sociological studies of communities, societies, cities, etc. A more recent name for this has been the 'conflict approach' which conceives of societies/communities/internet forums working together in class-based stratifications against other groups.

read above...

3. Marx talks at length about the relationship between class and the means of production which played a huge role in the development of political economy and, to a lesser extent, the development of economics. Marxian economics, while rejected by many remained one step in the development of modern economic orthodoxy.

part of it is answered above
Marxian economics are so totally discarded that his ideas aren't a part of any school of economic thought today, not austrians, not neoclasical/chichago, not keynesians
Marx is invoked on economic topics only by people coming from sociology and other social sciences, but not economy. (and by communists...)

4. Marx and Engels' provided one of the earliest and most influential accounts of industrialization and the effects of urbanization, i.e. the entire gesellschaft - gemeinschaft business and the huge amount of literature on the subject since. Their ideas about the city and its development prefaced Tonnies, Durkheim, Wirth, Park, basically every urban sociologist on the planet.

And I always was under impression that real communist (not those soviet sissies) were all about destroying civilization and cities and were writing boring studies about how and way they suck. Pol Pot more or less did with urban centers what Marx thought should/will be done.

So regardless of the validity of his ideas, Marx's work contributed in no small way to the development of economics, political science, helped birth sociology, produced significant works in German philosophical tradition, and inspired most of the 20th century's far-left movements. In intellectual and political terms, Marx is up there with the biggest names there are, and it's a shame he's being compared to a hack like Rand.

Marx was a terrible economist, somewhat less terrible sociologist and philosopher. Monster in private and political life.

He contributed nothing to economics. And by that, I don't mean, nothing significant. I mean, nothing.

concerning what?

materialism? historical materialism? dialectics? class theory?
his critic of political economics?

all of the above?
...

All of it.

 

[Ajidica]

Which he did not invent, but took over from other people and tried to squeeze into his world view. In the process, he dropped those who control the state vs. those who are exploited by the state and put his capitalists vs. workers. He never really managed (or tried) to explain other classes.

To be fair, Marx didn't see the rise of the nomenklatura, or administrative class which only emerged because of unforseable technical changes or the problems inherent in Leninism. A communist society along the lines of the Luxemburg or Goldman. However, it still doesn't fundamentaly alter his statements about the bourgeoise vs. the proletariat, it just requires a less strict view of the proletariat.

And I always was under impression that real communist (not those soviet sissies) were all about destroying civilization and cities and were writing boring studies about how and way they suck. Pol Pot more or less did with urban centers what Marx thought should/will be done.

Given that Marx was adament about Communist revolutions occuring in and urban, industrialized society I don't see how you can view Pol Pot's psychotic take on Cultural Revolution era Maoist thought as a universal statement on Marx's intentions.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Which he did not invent, but took over from other people and tried to squeeze into his world view.

In the process, he dropped those who control the state vs. those who are exploited by the state and put his capitalists vs. workers.

You don't seem to understand dialectical materialism very well. He "replaced" it because he updated it, though to be honest I'm not quite sure who from. I've not encountered an anti-state-oppression theory that is pre-Marxian, except for Proudhoun, who Marx explicitly speaks against. The liberals certainly weren't against the state, if anything they were more pro-centralized government than most of what came before them. The very concept of limited government didn't arise until Marx's time anyway, with John Stuart Mill.

He never really managed (or tried) to explain other classes.

Classes such as...

He never proved that all workers have or follow the same interests, or that all of his capitalists have or follow the same interests. That means that he never proved that there are only 2 classes in capitalism, an that was essential for "scientific" proof that history will one day move to the third stage or whatever.

It sounds to me like you've never read a word of Marx. All these things are addressed quite thoroughly.

Marx couldn't grasp importance of capital in production,

He dedicated a three thousand page tome to it.

let alone explain where do profits come from.

Please tell us the non-Marxian explanation then.

(In Marxism, wages are always at subsistence level because capitalists exploit their workers as much as that can. Also, wages are falling to the subsistence level, and when they do communist revolution will ensue. Seriously ???? But also, profits are falling in the long run. So, bot wages and profits are falling in the long run. No, I mean SERIOUSLY ??????????????)

Profit maximization is not something Marx invented, merely something he pointed out. A century of economists had been advocating and practicing it.

Another moronic idea.* Total determinism. It actually goes something like this:
Technology -> organization of production -> social structure -> ideas.
While social structure does have some effects on ideas, it also goes the other way.

You and Ergo Sum are addressing two completely different things. Sum is correct, that economic structure determines social structure, which largely determines things like culture. However, you have mistaken this for a path of historical explanation: it is not, it is a tool for historical interpretation. Marx stated, as you have observed, that material relations determines social relations.

read above...part of it is answered above

Indeed. What an explicit vindication of Marxist thought!

Marxian economics are so totally discarded that his ideas aren't a part of any school of economic thought today, not austrians, not neoclasical/chichago, not keynesians

Actually, they form the foundation for all but the Austrian school, even those silly Chicagoans who pretend to be going "back to basics" are grounded in a Marxist explanation of things. Do you wonder why? It's because Marx was the first to provide a comprehensive explanation of things, before him, it was all jumbled mishshash. Marx gave the slew of economists that wrote in the century before him a coherent interweaving; much of his material is not original. It was he who interpreted it and synthesized it into something coherent and understandable. All modern economics inexorably revolves around Marxian interpretation of things.

Marx is invoked on economic topics only by people coming from sociology and other social sciences, but not economy.

Yes because as I said, much of his observations are so mainstream and basic to the understand of economics that they're taken for granted as truth. Who said them is irrelevant.

(and by communists...)

Rather, we are the ones who dare to call his thought by its name.

And I always was under impression that real communist (not those soviet sissies) were all about destroying civilization and cities and were writing boring studies about how and way they suck. Pol Pot more or less did with urban centers what Marx thought should/will be done.

Marx was a terrible economist, somewhat less terrible sociologist and philosopher. Monster in private and political life.

How did his private life come into this? Not that he was a monster in that any more than he was in public.

He contributed nothing to economics. And by that, I don't mean, nothing significant. I mean, nothing..

For one, you call it capitalism, don't you? Yeah, that's his invention.

And as I pointed out above, you performed a spectacular own-goal with the historical materialism bit.

I suspect that in reality you know very little about Marx, his thinking, or indeed anything that you've bothered writing about in this thread.

 

[Crezth]

Hmmm.... well, Bioshock was pretty fun, so I'm going w/ Rand.

Bioshock is not a pro-Objectivist game, in fact I am of the opinion that it is decidedly anti-Objectivist as a matter of practicality. In theory, Ryan's society sounds great, but the game is so layered with the suggestion that this society simply can't work out (Fontaine is Ryan's foil and the primary reason that the Objectivist society is a pipe dream: not everyone is a rational actor) that it really should come across as being a cautionary tale about the danger's of Galt's Gulch, specifically how Galt's Gulch probably wouldn't work out as great as everyone says.

 

[Bootstoots]

Both were wrong, but I think Marx was wrong in a more interesting way than Rand was wrong. So I'll vote for Marx. He also had the most influence over history, even if by that I mean that tens of millions of people died under regimes that claimed to be influenced by him.

That said, Atlas Shrugged really is an interesting trip into the minds of the economic right, if you can make it through 1100 pages of tiny font with very obvious propaganda on every page. For some reason I couldn't put it down even though there's a lot that I would argue with.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Marxian economics are so totally discarded that his ideas aren't a part of any school of economic thought today, not austrians, not neoclasical/chichago, not keynesians
Marx is invoked on economic topics only by people coming from sociology and other social sciences, but not economy. (and by communists...)...He contributed nothing to economics. And by that, I don't mean, nothing significant. I mean, nothing.

You've done a magnificent job summarizing the thousands of pages of work Marx produced, but I have to restate that influence is not the same thing as validity... Maybe economists don't concern themselves with Marx because they're too busy trying to make money. Or is that just moronic determinism?

 

[amadeus]

concerning what?

Labor theory of value, surplus value, and communism taking root in industrialized societies, among other things. I've never bothered to read the actual texts themselves as, honestly, they strike me as boring. Why should I bother?

Plus, The Fountainhead made for a far more interesting movie than anything based on Marx.

 

[Hygro]

Marx couldn't grasp importance of capital in production, let alone explain where do profits come from. (In Marxism, wages are always at subsistence level because capitalists exploit their workers as much as that can. Also, wages are falling to the subsistence level, and when they do communist revolution will ensue. Seriously ???? But also, profits are falling in the long run. So, bot wages and profits are falling in the long run. No, I mean SERIOUSLY ??????????????)

LOL that's exactly what's been happening since the 1970s. Profitability has been declining for two whole generations and now we are on the third generation of people being born into declining worldwide profits. The question is what happens when worldwide wages converge as profitability continues to decline. Do wages actually begin to lose ground (this is very possible)? And if we start losing wages worldwide, what's the outcome? We've already been seeing the politics of people who are trying to protect what they have. We've seen this play out for example as a change from improving America's institutions to preferring tax cuts, etc.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Plus, The Fountainhead made for a far more interesting movie than anything based on Marx.

Not a fan of Metropolis?

 

[amadeus]

Not a fan of Metropolis?

I had to sit through that once. Awful!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Did you watch the version that had Queen in it?

 

[aelf]

You don't seem to understand dialectical materialism very well. He "replaced" it because he updated it, though to be honest I'm not quite sure who from.

Pretty sure that, if anything, there's a lot of Feuerbach in it.

Another moronic idea.* Total determinism. It actually goes something like this:
Technology -> organization of production -> social structure -> ideas.
While social structure does have some effects on ideas, it also goes the other way.

*One of the founding stones of the whole philosopy

Materialism =/= economic/technological determinism. I am disappoint with how they taught Marx in the Eastern Bloc countries.