The man of the moment...

[Richard Cribb]

As promised in the recent Atlas Shrugged thread, here is one devoted to Karl Marx.
As a starting point, I offer this article:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1530250,00.html
Some extracts, bolds by your truly:

The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns that the herd instinct of capital-owners such as himself must be controlled before they trample everyone else underfoot. 'Marx and Engels gave a very good analysis of the capitalist system 150 years ago, better in some ways, I must say, than the equilibrium theory of classical economics,' he writes. 'The main reason why their dire predictions did not come true was because of countervailing political interventions in democratic countries. Unfortunately we are once again in danger of drawing the wrong conclusions from the lessons of history. This time the danger comes not from communism but from market fundamentalism.'
In October 1997 the business correspondent of the New Yorker, John Cassidy, reported a conversation with an investment banker. 'The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was right,' the financier said. 'I am absolutely convinced that Marx's approach is the best way to look at capitalism.' His curiosity aroused, Cassidy read Marx for the first time. He found 'riveting passages about globalisation, inequality, political corruption, monopolisation, technical progress, the decline of high culture, and the enervating nature of modern existence - issues that economists are now confronting anew, sometimes without realising that they are walking in Marx's footsteps'.
Like Molière's bourgeois gentleman who discovered to his amazement that for more than 40 years he had been speaking prose without knowing it, much of the Western bourgeoisie absorbed Marx's ideas without ever noticing. It was a belated reading of Marx in the 1990s that inspired the financial journalist James Buchan to write his brilliant study Frozen Desire: An Inquiry into the Meaning of Money (1997).

'Everybody I know now believes that their attitudes are to an extent a creation of their material circumstances,' he wrote, 'and that changes in the ways things are produced profoundly affect the affairs of humanity even outside the workshop or factory. It is largely through Marx, rather than political economy, that those notions have come down to us.'

Even the Economist journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, eager cheerleaders for turbo-capitalism, acknowledge the debt. 'As a prophet of socialism Marx may be kaput,' they wrote in A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalisation (2000), 'but as a prophet of the "universal interdependence of nations" as he called globalisation, he can still seem startlingly relevant.' Their greatest fear was that 'the more successful globalisation becomes the more it seems to whip up its own backlash' - or, as Marx himself said, that modern industry produces its own gravediggers.

The bourgeoisie has not died. But nor has Marx: his errors or unfulfilled prophecies about capitalism are eclipsed and transcended by the piercing accuracy with which he revealed the nature of the beast. 'Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones,' he wrote in The Communist Manifesto.

Until quite recently most people in this country seemed to stay in the same job or institution throughout their working lives - but who does so now? As Marx put it: 'All that is solid melts into air.'

In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects - commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigour, tyrannising the people who produce them.

So, are we all Marxists, then?
But honestly, this is an invitation to discuss an influental thinker about whom quite a few misunderstandings seem to prevail. Was he a prophet, a charlatan, a philosophical genius, a philosophical buffoon, or something else? Is it still any use in occupying oneself with his thoughts? As seen above, some people think so, but what do you think?

You may post whatever relevant to the topic, but please refrain from sloganeering, ad hominem attacks or spam (I don't need any "funny" one-liners about North Korea or Cuba, neither do I need to told once again that some of you would love to have Milton Friedman's babies).

As for my own opinion, I will return to that after having seen where this thread is heading, or more precisely whether it has no right to life at all.

 

[Ecofarm]

If you would like to discuss Marx, try quoting him - instead of "The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns ...."

I hate to start a thread with a request for source, but do you want to discuss Soros or Marx?

Perhaps you would like to discuss Soro's (not surprising) assessment of Marx? I bet I can tell you what he said without reading it.

For those who do not know, Soros is the largest contributor to the democratic party and bankroll behind Air America (the ultra-left radio propoganda). While I find Air America entertaining on occasion, the amount of (presumably) unprosecuted slander that occurs is astounding to me.

Wait, I found 2 quotes by Marx in there:

'Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones,' he wrote in The Communist Manifesto.

Noble savage.

In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects - commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigour, tyrannising the people who produce them.

Grand masterpiece? So grand that even those inclined to read the Manifesto almost never venture into the 4 digit page territory of Kapital. Really, the manifesto is a far greater piece of work, readership alone dictates this (not to mention better writing).

One is a congealed innimate commodity tyrannising the people who produced "it"? That's quite an accusation. Grand, that's one word for such generalizations.

Marx's infantile historical rhetoric and (however convincing) illustration of dehumanization hardly qualifies as a discussion of Marxist theory. Enough doom and gloom. Let's have some of the altruic rhetoric and a dash of labor > natural resources. Those are 2 of my favorite parts /sarcasm.

 

[Jesus Civs]

Marx had no respect for the individual and for capital.

I care not if I am like him, for it is out of sheer coincidence that I am.

 

[Verbose]

Whatever one may think of Marxism as an ideology, Marx himself had a point in principle which isn't going to go away - in order to analyse the capitalist system, one must try to find a vantage point from which to view it as if from the outside.

His was a very good one.

As for things like class-struggle, I find it very interesting that a British study that came out not too long ago identified as a possible future concern about political upheaval would be for the middle-class to again become a revolutionary class, as it it coming under preassure and their social and financial position becomes more precarious due to the effects of globalisation.

That bears thinking about - if the system doesn't deliver for the middle-class, the middle-class, uncool but large, might decide to do the system in. It's what happened in the 19th c...

I'll see if I can dig up that study.

 

[Masquerouge]

Wait, I found 2 quotes by Marx in there:

In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects - commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigour, tyrannising the people who produce them.

eerrr that's not a quote by Marx, now is it? So you asked whether to discuss Marx or Soros, but it seems you too must decide whether to quote Marx or quote people talking about Marx

 

[Fifty]

What I find interesting is that for a long time, in most circles (even among famous Marx scholars like G.E. Cohen) Marx was mainly admired as someone who had interesting things to say about the nature of power and such, that have moralizing implications on the world, but that his empirical claims were way off base.

These days, though, Marx scholars have been "naturalizing" him, meaning they are seeing him in the new philosophical light originally conceived by W.V.O. Quine to deal with epistemological questions. Marx scholars today, (led by a philosophy and law professor named Brian Leiter*) are taking his empirical claims much more seriously and finding suprisingly congruencies with fact in many (though of course not all) areas of his thought. It's rather interesting that philosophers on one end and economists/finance guys on the other end are actually starting to take his empirical claims seriously again. I suppose now that communism isn't so much of a dirty word as it once was, it all makes sense though.

He's certainly a great philosopher though who had a lot of things to say. I don't know much about the mechanics of political theory, so as for communism I'll just quote what I said in the Rand thread:

The free market system, in the classical formulation, requires people to be perfectly rational, and to have perfect knowledge of preferences and perfect information regarding all available options. Firm models also require costless entry and exit of firms. Now if capitalism never existed in practice, and you just looked at those theoretical requirements for it to work properly, you'd go "WTF, this capitalism business is completely wrong about fundamental aspects of human beings". The point, of course, is that just because something has wacked out requirements in its theoretical form does not mean that its garbage. Just as a semi-free market with non-rational consumers and imperfect information works well on some levels, communism may work well on some levels and maybe even work better.

I don't know enough about political theory to level an opinion as to whether communism is correct or not, and my tendancy is definitely to be skeptical of it, and for all I know great arguments might be out there against it, but my point is just that the two most often touted refutations of it (USSR and human nature) are quite poorly reasoned.

I look forward to actually trying to learn about him/communism in more detail if and when I get over my general distaste for political theory.


*you might like Leiter's blog, lucea. A neat mishmash of philosophy, academia stuff, and smart political commentary from someone living in the eye of the storm (texas). He has a lot of good stuff on academic freedom too, and great refutations of the BS tenure denial of Normal Finklestein.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well. well, well.
Looks like I hit rock bottom. I never expected any of my threads to become a blockbuster, but honestly folks, 5 posts whereof one pathetic troll attempt.
O tempora, o mores!
But anyway, thanks to the last two posters for providing good feedback, and considering who they are no surprise really.

Now before I proceed, I think I'd better take out the garbage:

If you would like to discuss Marx, try quoting him - instead of "The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns ...."

If I want to discuss Marx or anything else, I bloody well decide myself how I want to proceed. I can't help for your inability to read plain English; the article I presented is a good yet simple one (although evidently not simple enough for some individuals) which quotes quite a few people, not only Soros. I don't get salaried for my activities here, and given that I have a busy life outside this board have no good incentive to start an achademical seminary.

I hate to start a thread with a request for source, but do you want to discuss Soros or Marx?

I hate to sound condescending, but do you know how to read?

Perhaps you would like to discuss Soro's (not surprising) assessment of Marx? I bet I can tell you what he said without reading it.

And I bet you can't.

For those who do not know, Soros is the largest contributor to the democratic party and bankroll behind Air America (the ultra-left radio propoganda). While I find Air America entertaining on occasion, the amount of (presumably) unprosecuted slander that occurs is astounding to me.

You are a riot.
I suppose in your twisted little bizarro world, Air America is ultra-left radio "propoganda". Al Franken = Lenin?!?
The sad truth is, though, that people like you wouldn't know what ultra-left is if it jumped up and pinched your noses. The democratic party is a pro-business, pro establishment, pro-empire party, and frankly I am offended by anybody who claim that they in any way belong to the political left.

Grand masterpiece? So grand that even those inclined to read the Manifesto almost never venture into the 4 digit page territory of Kapital. Really, the manifesto is a far greater piece of work, readership alone dictates this (not to mention better writing).

Lazy, dull people will always whine when efforts are demanded of them. I think the fact that you are unable to read a simple article disqualifies you from passing judgement about what is Marx' best work.

One is a congealed innimate commodity tyrannising the people who produced "it"? That's quite an accusation. Grand, that's one word for such generalizations.

Grand, that is not the word for dodging a question one does not understand.

Marx's infantile historical rhetoric and (however convincing) illustration of dehumanization hardly qualifies as a discussion of Marxist theory. Enough doom and gloom. Let's have some of the altruic rhetoric and a dash of labor > natural resources. Those are 2 of my favorite parts /sarcasm.

I suggest, as the most human solution, that you stay out of debates that is too intellectually demanding for you. I would most dearly appreciate if you stopped polluting any of my threads with incoherent drivel and returned to your little sandbox of playing "politics" with the other littleRepublicrats and Demopublicans.

Marx had no respect for the individual and for capital.

Marx had a great respect for the individual.

I care not if I am like him, for it is out of sheer coincidence that I am.

How so?

And now; for the good stuff:

Whatever one may think of Marxism as an ideology, Marx himself had a point in principle which isn't going to go away - in order to analyse the capitalist system, one must try to find a vantage point from which to view it as if from the outside.

His was a very good one.

As for things like class-struggle, I find it very interesting that a British study that came out not too long ago identified as a possible future concern about political upheaval would be for the middle-class to again become a revolutionary class, as it it coming under preassure and their social and financial position becomes more precarious due to the effects of globalisation.

That bears thinking about - if the system doesn't deliver for the middle-class, the middle-class, uncool but large, might decide to do the system in. It's what happened in the 19th c...

I'll see if I can dig up that study.

Yes, a couple of good points here.
Regarding the middle-class (and leaving aside the question whether there is such a class at all), many pro-capitalists have expressed concern of its possible disappearance as a result of predatory capitalism. Soros, the very same quoted in the article, is one of those who has seen this clearly and warned about it. What is interesting, is of course which political direction this class will take this time if the squeeze will be really on...

What I find interesting is that for a long time, in most circles (even among famous Marx scholars like G.E. Cohen) Marx was mainly admired as someone who had interesting things to say about the nature of power and such, that have moralizing implications on the world, but that his empirical claims were way off base.

That is a fair description, but as this article hints, some of the most important of Marx empirical claims are actually spot on. I think a lot of ideology is produced around demonstrating how mistaken he was, be it out of misunderstanding or because of objective class interests. Only here I have seen this at play a few times, for instance on one occasion where a most pompous individual was gloating over how far off the concept of pauperization of the working class was. The only problem was only that said stout yeoman had not got it at all.

These days, though, Marx scholars have been "naturalizing" him, meaning they are seeing him in the new philosophical light originally conceived by W.V.O. Quine to deal with epistemological questions. Marx scholars today, (led by a philosophy and law professor named Brian Leiter*) are taking his empirical claims much more seriously and finding suprisingly congruencies with fact in many (though of course not all) areas of his thought.

I read Leiter with great interest and actually learned something worthwhile.

It's rather interesting that philosophers on one end and economists/finance guys on the other end are actually starting to take his empirical claims seriously again. I suppose now that communism isn't so much of a dirty word as it once was, it all makes sense though.

I think that is natural.
One simply can't suppress good ideas forever, whatever big propaganda machine one has available. Marx has both a strong intellectual and moral appeal, and as far as I am concerned he will have relevance as long as privilege societies exist. And that is beyond capitalism.

He's certainly a great philosopher though who had a lot of things to say. I don't know much about the mechanics of political theory, so as for communism I'll just quote what I said in the Rand thread:

I like what you wrote very much, it reveals true insight.
I finally got to post something there myself, but since that was directed solely to the claims of another poster, I didn't comment on it.
So here you are, a belated

I look forward to actually trying to learn about him/communism in more detail if and when I get over my general distaste for political theory.

I think you should try hard to get over it.
The world of politics is a dirty one, and there is a loth of things to loath in it, but it is nevertheless an important arena to participate in.

*you might like Leiter's blog, lucea. A neat mishmash of philosophy, academia stuff, and smart political commentary from someone living in the eye of the storm (texas). He has a lot of good stuff on academic freedom too, and great refutations of the BS tenure denial of Normal Finklestein.

Thanks a lot. I had a look at it yesterday, and I must say that it was a lot of interesting material available. I will most certainly include it in my 20-something blogs to be read on regular basis.

As for the thread, I guess that I don't even have to request it closed, as it will only die a natural dead remembered by few. I will however post a few thoughts regarding the man who is its topic tomorrow.

 

[Bill3000]

I suppose in your twisted little bizarro world, Air America is ultra-left radio "propoganda". Al Franken = Lenin?!?
The sad truth is, though, that people like you wouldn't know what ultra-left is if it jumped up and pinched your noses. The democratic party is a pro-business, pro establishment, pro-empire party, and frankly I am offended by anybody who claim that they in any way belong to the political left.

Considering the fact that the US doesn't have much of a political left in global terms to begin with, it's quite understandable.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Considering the fact that the US doesn't have much of a political left in global terms to begin with, it's quite understandable.

Understandable, perhaps, but to understand is not to excuse. Ignorance is not always bliss.
I am old-fashioned enough to prefer substance to form, and just because US politics is dominated by two bourgeois parties, one shouldn't call the one which leans slightly less to the right for left just to keep up an illusion of real political difference. Unless one has something to gain from it, of course...
And even USA has a share of socialists and communists. Just consider who is probably the world's most famous radical intellectual.

 

[downtown]

I don't think I have a whole lot I can add here. Its been a few years since I did any real study of Marx (or for that matter, real political philosophy, since my studies tend to focus more on its application).

However, I think many people, from laymen, to political science students, to CFCers, are tempted to write off all of Marx very quickly. I *think* it might go something like this..

Marx "invented" communism ===> Communism is bad/didnt work/stupid, thus = Marx = bad/wrong/stupid. Perhaps they read part of the manifesto in high school. I read it for the first time when I was 16, and thought I understood it. I read it again when I was 19, in a political philosophy course, and my thoughts changed.

I would certainly describe myself as "pro-capitalist", but I think it would be unwise to lump all of Marx's writings into a group of things not worth studying. Certainly, he had much to say about Power, Religion, History, etc. If I were to say "I'm not going to read any Nietchze, because he said "God is Dead", and I am religious", I think I would be a poor student indeed.

Such as it is, I think, with Marx.

 

[happy_Alex]

Excellent thread Luce, and may I say how pleased I am that you are still around, stirring the pot and kicking reactionary arse

I agree with the broad theme of your OP, In which you say Marx is fundamentally relevant to todays world.
Some points: marx demonstrated that the idea that workers were 'free' to withold surplus labour was a falacy. This is applicable to third world sweastshops today as it was to 19th century london.

Also, the need of capitalism to have a pool of unemployed, to the end mentioned above, to control wages.

I'm just throwing these out there, I will go home and continue reading kapital, I just got throught the lengthy introduction and have started on some of the chapters. Hopefully I can add some thing else to this discussion!

Solidarity

 

[Ecofarm]

Now before I proceed, I think I'd better take out the garbage:

I hate to sound condescending, but do you know how to read?

Yes. There was one quote from Marx and one indirect quote. The rest was Soros and other unqualified people talking about Marx.

And I bet you can't.

I bet I can predict Soros' opinion on Marx and other political ideologues, considering Soros' very public political stances.

You are a riot.
I suppose in your twisted little bizarro world, Air America is ultra-left radio "propoganda". Al Franken = Lenin?!?
The sad truth is, though, that people like you wouldn't know what ultra-left is if it jumped up and pinched your noses. The democratic party is a pro-business, pro establishment, pro-empire party, and frankly I am offended by anybody who claim that they in any way belong to the political left.

I would also be offended if anyone dared to think that the democrats are left wing. Further, Air America is slanderous left wing propoganda, whether you like it or not.

Lazy, dull people will always whine when efforts are demanded of them. I think the fact that you are unable to read a simple article disqualifies you from passing judgement about what is Marx' best work.

I read the article. It was drivel.

Grand, that is not the word for dodging a question one does not understand.

I suggest, as the most human solution, that you stay out of debates that is too intellectually demanding for you. I would most dearly appreciate if you stopped polluting any of my threads with incoherent drivel and returned to your little sandbox of playing "politics" with the other littleRepublicrats and Demopublicans.

No prob. You are ignored. Enjoy your Soros-fanboy "intellectual" discussion of Marxist Theory.

 

[punkbass2000]

I don't think I have a whole lot I can add here. Its been a few years since I did any real study of Marx (or for that matter, real political philosophy, since my studies tend to focus more on its application).

However, I think many people, from laymen, to political science students, to CFCers, are tempted to write off all of Marx very quickly. I *think* it might go something like this..

Marx "invented" communism ===> Communism is bad/didnt work/stupid, thus = Marx = bad/wrong/stupid. Perhaps they read part of the manifesto in high school. I read it for the first time when I was 16, and thought I understood it. I read it again when I was 19, in a political philosophy course, and my thoughts changed.

I would certainly describe myself as "pro-capitalist", but I think it would be unwise to lump all of Marx's writings into a group of things not worth studying. Certainly, he had much to say about Power, Religion, History, etc. If I were to say "I'm not going to read any Nietchze, because he said "God is Dead", and I am religious", I think I would be a poor student indeed.

Such as it is, I think, with Marx.

I completely agree. People tend towards taking it in an all-or-nothing manner. One can absorb and appreciate much of Marx's work without being socialist.

 

[Phlegmak]

But honestly, this is an invitation to discuss an influental thinker about whom quite a few misunderstandings seem to prevail. Was he a prophet, a charlatan, a philosophical genius, a philosophical buffoon, or something else? Is it still any use in occupying oneself with his thoughts? As seen above, some people think so, but what do you think?

Marx was a moron. He thinks economics is a zero sum game, which it isn't. I'm not an economist by any means, but it's quite obvious that economics isn't a zero sum game. "When X sells his product to Y, X takes wealth away from Y." That's like a child's thinking.

 

[Verbose]

That's one problem with being too successful a philosopher; since everyone had more or less come around to your point of view in retrospect, everyone tends to assume they could have come up with that themselves, since it just seems so intuitively right.

 

[Phlegmak]

Another one that gets me is this one:

X makes a chair for his employer Y.
Y sells the chair for $20.
Y pays X $5 for his labor.
So Y stole $15 from X.

Good. Lord. That is just plain useless. I mean, the first most blazingly obvious flaw in that is the raw material cost. Then advertising costs. Then building maintenance costs. In the end, Y is still trying to make a profit which will be less than $15, and that's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

 

[Bill3000]

Another one that gets me is this one:

X makes a chair for his employer Y.
Y sells the chair for $20.
Y pays X $5 for his labor.
So Y stole $15 from X.

Good. Lord. That is just plain useless. I mean, the first most blazingly obvious flaw in that is the raw material cost. Then advertising costs. Then building maintenance costs. In the end, Y is still trying to make a profit which will be less than $15, and that's perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

Uh...

There are many different accounts of labor value, with the common element that the "value" of an exchangeable good or service is, or ought to be, or tends to be, or can be considered as, equal or proportional to the amount of labor required to produce it (including the labor required to produce the raw materials and machinery used in production).

Though it's still superseded by the marginal theory of value, so meh.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Excellent thread Luce, and may I say how pleased I am that you are still around, stirring the pot and kicking reactionary arse

Thanks a lot, friend.
I don't do as much for the case here as I should, but apart from an overdose of RL recently, all the mind-numbing tedium (exemplified well even on this very thread)that this board provides is kind of discouraging.

I agree with the broad theme of your OP, In which you say Marx is fundamentally relevant to todays world.
Some points: marx demonstrated that the idea that workers were 'free' to withold surplus labour was a falacy. This is applicable to third world sweastshops today as it was to 19th century london.

Also, the need of capitalism to have a pool of unemployed, to the end mentioned above, to control wages.

Those points are very important , and something to think about for the "liberal democracy" cheerleaders.

I'm just throwing these out there, I will go home and continue reading kapital, I just got throught the lengthy introduction and have started on some of the chapters. Hopefully I can add some thing else to this discussion!

Solidarity

Have a good reading; I look forward to your further contributions, they are always welcome.

No prob. You are ignored. Enjoy your Soros-fanboy "intellectual" discussion of Marxist Theory.

You really are a riot.
Return to under your bridge now, just remember to close the door well behind you. And please don't call us, we'll call you.

I completely agree. People tend towards taking it in an all-or-nothing manner. One can absorb and appreciate much of Marx's work without being socialist.

Interesting. Can you be a bit more concrete on this?

Marx was a moron. He thinks economics is a zero sum game, which it isn't. I'm not an economist by any means, but it's quite obvious that economics isn't a zero sum game. "When X sells his product to Y, X takes wealth away from Y." That's like a child's thinking.

(---)Another one that gets me is this one:

X makes a chair for his employer Y.
Y sells the chair for $20.
Y pays X $5 for his labor.
So Y stole $15 from X.

Now let me get this straight. You think that Marx is a moron because you don't understand the LTV?
I think I'd better let you comment on that yourself:

Good. Lord. That is just plain useless.

Honestly you folks are going to kill me one day.

Uh...

Uh, indeed.

Though it's still superseded by the marginal theory of value, so meh.

It is not, so unmeh.

 

[Fifty]

I stumbled upon some stuff by Chomsky about Marx. I wonder what luceafarul (and others?) think. If there are lots of spelling errors its because I'm typing this from a book:

[the lead in to this first quote is that Chomsky is saying that to discuss Marx and his ideas like we are doing is perfectly fine, but that an ideology such as "Marxism" is just stupid]

"So Marxism, Freudianism: any one of those things I think is an irrational cult. They're theology, so they're whatever you think of theology. I odn't think much of it. In fact, in my view that's exactly the right analogy: notions like Marxism and Freudianism belong to the history of organized religion. So part of my problem is just its existence: it seems to me that even to discuss something like "Marxism" is already making a mistake."

"Marx did some very interesting descriptive work on 19th century history. He was a very good journalist. When he describes the British in India, or the Paris Commune, or the parts of Capital that talk about industrial London, a lot of that is kind of interesting--I think later scholarship has improved it and changed it, but it's quite interesting."

"[Marx] had an abstract model of capitalism which--I'm not sure how valuable it is, to tell you the truth. It was an abstract model, and like any abstract model, it's not really intended to be descriptively accurate in detail, it's intended to sort of pull out some crucial features and study those. And you have to ask in the case of an abstract model, how much of the complex reality does it really capture? That's questionable in this case--first of all, it's questionable how much of 19th century capitalism is captured, and I think it's even more questionable how much of late 20th century capitalism it captures."

"There's nothing about socialism in Marx, he wasn't a socialist philosopher--there are about five sentences in Marx's whole work that refer to socialism. He was a theorist of capitalism. I think he introduced some interesting concepts at least, which every sinsible person ought to have mastered and employ, notions of class, and relations of production..."



Chomsky seems to think less of Marx than I would have thought! Although he obviously considers him a good and important philosopher.

 

[aneeshm]

I judge Marx (and pretty much everyone else) by the actual, practical consequences of people trying to apply his theories to real life.

Given that, do I need to say which side of this debate I am on?


EDIT: This is not to deny the man his due.

It is possible that he was absolutely brilliant, a great person to know, and a man genuinely trying to do good in the world. Some of his ideas may even be valid. The only problem is, it (the whole package of his ideas, taken together) didn't work. Many ideas exist which are brilliant, and appeal, in the abstract, to the mind, but which don't work for one reason or the other. Marx's ideas, and Communism, are things I would lump into this category. Though I cannot espouse them even in theory, I still can appreciate that they may be brilliant from another point of view.