It is May the Fourth, a day known to pun-loving fans of the Star Wars franchise and one that marks the coming of the neoliberal Sith. In 1979, Dame Darth Thatcher rose to vengeance on a date, which, if not consistently followed by May 5, would bring the good more sorrow than the creation of Jar Jar Binks.
May 5, 1818, is the birthdate of Karl Heinrich Marx. This is a fact the Marxist remembers, but one seldom proper for her to publicly relay. After all, Crikey is not an On-This-Day type of publication and Marx was hardly a Happy Birthday type of chap. Still, you only turn 200 once.
So hats off to you, Charlie, and let’s say no to candles. We will wait for history to extinguish the delusion that all you wrote was “wrong”.
One may call Marx “wrong” only after reading him. He is read by a few, but overwhelmingly dismissed, and even taught, by those who just couldn’t be bothered.
The man who gave the last part of his working life to the question of capital and the first to the question of being is “wrong” for all the wrong reasons. Here are three of the wrongest
1. Marx was an idealist with far too much faith in the natural virtue of people
No. Marx was a materialist who had only a little to say about natural human virtue — or vice, for that matter. It is not human nature that shapes social existence, but social existence that shapes the effing human. You want to read guys whose economic theses hinge on belief in natural human virtues, try John Locke, Adam Smith or David Ricardo.
2. Marx wrote things ages ago so who cares?
By the year of Marx’s birth, Locke and Smith were long dead. David Ricardo’s last laissez-faire lines had been written. These thinkers continue to directly inform both policy elites and the economic hobbyist who believes that capitalism is “natural”, has a “natural” point of balance and isn’t really anything but a system of natural and equal exchange.
3. The Soviet Experiment
Yeah, it’s not a good look. But (a) Marx did say that communism was a historical stage attainable after capitalism (b) state capitalism (as Lenin himself called it) spared the USSR the bother of the Great Depression (c) nowhere in all the work of Marx and Engels is there anything resembling a blueprint for Stalinism (d) the thought of nuclear proliferation — and a US hegemon with weapons manufacture as its post-war strategy for economic dominance — never occurred to Karl.
***
Classical economics has failed us. True freedom for all, whose precondition, Marx wrote, was freedom for each, eludes us. The crisis tendency of capitalism the bloke took pains to explain is, surely and often, quite plain. When it is so evident that “human nature” makes far less of a dent in the average day than immense institutions, all of them in service to capital, maybe this 200-year-old philosopher-economist is worth a crack. If only to prove him “wrong”.
I was a bit of a liberal until I read your book about Marx, Helen, and now am a raving Marxist. Ridiculously true that “he is read by a few, but overwhelmingly dismissed, and even taught, by those who just couldn’t be bothered”.
Nicely put Helen and a very timely reminder. The ‘crisis tendency of capitalism’ continues. Long live the memory of the ‘wonderful, misunderstood shit-stirrer’ Karl Marx.
Hi Helen,
Thanks for the shout out about Karl. I have been thinking a lot about him recently. You know, the stuff about the financial sector being unproductive? We sure are seeing that n spades right now. My other big thank you to him is the concept ‘contradiction’ – how could we live without that? I know so many people who say of some policy or other – some person or other, too – but that contradicts this? Yeah, I say, we’re all contradictory – get over it! Then I see a really puzzled face as the person works it out. Hurrah.
Happy 200!
Hey, Djbekka. Always good to have a big think about a big thinker. Glad you’re having a time of it!
I will say, though (and I promise, this will be boring and miss your comic intent!) that the contradictions within capitalism of which Marx wrote should not be understood as, say, human contradictions are.
I agree that we are contradictory beings! We always have that personal drive hitting up against our social and interconnected lives. But this is not comparable to the contradictions Marx wrote down.
If I had a better memory of school/more time to Google, I could probably give you some examples of contradiction observed by earlier philosophers. (Actually, tendency of the rate of profit to fall was a contradiction noted by Ricardo. Probably also Smith. You can’t expect me to read The Wealth of Nations, can you!? It’s really long.) So Marx didn’t give us the concept of contradiction (pretty sure Jane Austen was full of observations about our human contradictions.)
So it’s not like capitalism has contradictions because contradictions are inevitable in all things. (Even though we could make that argument, probably.) It’s because it eventually wears itself out, in his view. That it is not sustainable.
The chapters in the mid twenties to thirties in Capital vol 1 talk about this. Don’t ask me about Volume 2 as I am not very good at reading and understanding things full of equations. Oh, and this on M-C-M (money commodity money) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm
And…I’ll shut up.
The thing is, though, the contradictions occur not because contradiction are inherent in any system, but because this particular system has a self-destruct button. Which is a bugger to understand, you know. I never intended to attempt to understand economics. Ugh.
Firstly, Helen, despite some correspondence to friends to the contrary (from frustration etc.) Marx was NOT a shit-stirrer. Marx identified the origin of profit (via surplus value) and his home country did not care for it. The longer version would occupy too much space but I am happy to provide it. As an aside, like Dickens, he put his kids into top-end schools (which is the smart thing to do). Marx was actually very bourgeois (roughly – from the French : people of the city).
> One may call Marx “wrong” only after reading him.
Indeed. Too many sloppy secondary sources but mixed in with some first class secondary sources; ‘Culture’ by Raymond Williams in particular. The book is by no means a ‘beginner’s guide’ but it hasn’t dated since 1982.
“He is read by a few, but overwhelmingly dismissed, and even taught, by those who just couldn’t be bothered”
He is actually read by more than a few Helen but in the same vein of not wanting to be identified as an atheist there are any number of non-Chicago economists that would prefer not to be considered Marxist sympathisers. Galbraith was a case in point along with a number of others.
Locke, Ricardo and Smith wrote “illustratively”. ALL (especially Smith) had no desire to have their work (theories) associated with “human virtues/nature” per se. The perspectives of writing among the educated in the lat 18th century comprised Ethics, Rights, Liberty (in about that order) with “virtue” comprising the whole. Otherwise : entirely correct Helen.
I’m literally unsure as to your 2nd point but it has to be emphasised that Marx had a very high regard for Ricardo. That the (economic) theories of Ricardo have been bastardised (the rent-theories in particular) to an equivalent extent as those of Smith or Marx is a given.
I would rewrite point three entirely. Malcolm Muggeridge expressed the view that Marx could be forgiven for advocating Communism on account of not witnessing its effects in practice but it was pointed out to Muggeridge that NOBODY has witnessed the effects (as articulated in the Manifesto) in practice – with a possible nod towards the Israeli Kibbutz system. The system worked only amongst the more enlightened (Begin’s description) community members. The Stalin, Soviet, Mao etc stuff amounted to totalitarianism and NOT Communism.
> Classical economics has failed us
Actually – NO Helen. Classical economics is Smith, Ricardo and Marx. Neo-classical economics (a misnomer but entrenched nonetheless), with its obsession concerning concepts such as utility and assumptions concerning perfect markets has failed us; Supply-side economics being the latter-day version; neo-lib if one prefers.
“When it is so evident that “human nature” makes far less of a dent in the average day than immense institutions,”
I just know that you are going to hit me but I am sorry to say that such is another confused sentence. Marx was damned careful NOT to mention such qualities as human nature because with such an admission the objectives of ANY social theory are subsequently compromised. Marx would describe the effects of the “immense institutions” AS the conditions in which one makes their personal/life decisions albeit comprised of individual board members / executives etc. In other words the choices are not free in an absolute sense but free only in terms of choosing what has been supplied.
An entirely readable “first date” with Marx is “The ABCs of Marxism” (The Ideas of Karl Marx) by Alan Woods. [the insistence of sub-titles by American publishing houses!] and, a tad more advanced (but not much more advanced, is “On Marxism and the State” by Phil Mitchinson. For the truly adventurous there is Williams (mentioned above).
Hi, Kyle, and thanks, as ever, for your tireless commitment to accuracy.
In the effort to assuage your fears that all I write is fiction, falsehood or guesswork, I will address some of your concerns.
I did not select the headline. Published writers rarely do. Nonetheless, I believe this one reflects the life, and the legacy, of Karl Marx. While it is true that the man was born to the petite-bourgeoisie, it is also true that he was born to a Jewish family forced to renounce their faith to assume entry into a class that history had only just created. It is also true that the young Marx did not follow his father into the legal profession, did not, despite his obvious talent, suck up to the university for an academic role and was deported from many nations who recognised him as a stirrer before eventually gaining asylum in Britain, then a relatively liberal place.
Jenny Marx, née von Westphalen, was the daughter of minor nobles and, notwithstanding her commitment to a man not only below her class but openly opposed to class itself, was able to keep up an appearance of respectability in London. Still, she saw four of her seven children die in poverty before adulthood. I have read the book Love and Capital about the Marx marriage and I don’t remember anything about private schooling in there, but it’s possible, I guess. The Marx daughters were all very literate, and I think it was Tussy who first translated Capital into English. But this whole “Marx crammed bonbons into his beard and had servants galore” is not at all a true reflection of the way the Marx family lived. It’s a story long told to discredit his work.
As for the work being less than shit-stirring? I can’t even begin to address that. His thought is more difficult and challenging than the conditions of his life.
Re your concerns about taxonomy. Okay, let’s agree to call it the neoclassical model of economics. But, we cannot call Marx part of the classical economic tradition. One can be a classical Marxist economist but not a classical economist and also Marxist. Still, in a broad piece speaking broadly about broad movements, what can one do but say that there is one (massive) group of economists who believe in capitalist equilibrium, and these all owe a debt to Smith et al, and there is a tiny group of heterodox economists (Pettifor, Keen, Hudson) who believe that finance capital makes capitalist equilibrium impossible and then an even tinier number of classical Marxist economists who do not believe that there is a possibility of equilibrium in capitalism at all. No economist would call Marx’s economics classical in the sense it is a understood by all economists.
Re your thing about human nature. Look again. Marx had very little to say about human nature and a great deal to say about how human consciousness is formed by social conditions. I say this outright, and you’ve just read that sentence upside down or in a rush. The whole “being creates consciousness” thing is a fundamental part of Marxism. It’s often the first thing one learns.
I say “a few” people read Marx. I didn’t say only a few or specify a number. You’re just being nit-picky, here, comrade!
I really appreciate your eagerness to engage, Kyle. I hope next time you do, you read what I have written first.
I’d say Eagleton’s Why Marx was Right is a fine introduction.
“In the effort to assuage your fears that all I write is fiction, falsehood or guesswork, I will address some of your concerns.”
On the contrary Helen. You work reveals great insight and originality. In point of fact (and contrary to your assertion) be assured that I DO read what you have written but I will confess to not comprehending some of the links and implications that many subscribers seem to consider to be obvious. I’m a simple guy and dependent upon the Queen’s English for comprehension.
> I did not select the headline. Published writers rarely do.
.mmm .. I do tend to learn something every day and for today this is the item! I’m tempted to ask the reason but I won’t bother.
> [the domestic proclivities of Marx] “told to discredit his work”.
Quite; as if the point is at all germane.
“As for the work being less than shit-stirring? I can’t even begin to address that. His thought is more difficult and challenging than the conditions of his life.
Ok Helen. Would you regard Locke as a “shit-stirrer”? That he had to duck out of the country (England) every so often (invariably to the Netherlands) was not a circumstance which he invited. A “shit-stirrer” is a frustrated arsonist or a vandal of some complexion. They effect X and await the consequences. Marx was not of that ilk. He even pissed off Milton Friedman off (as did Keynes) but such does not make him a shit-stirrer (in my view – or Friedman right).
“Re your concerns about taxonomy. Okay, let’s agree to call it the neoclassical model of economics. But, we cannot call Marx part of the classical economic tradition. “
Actually we can because Marx has a lot more in common with Smith and Ricardo then dissension. The detail would take some time but it is there.
“One can be a classical Marxist economist but not a classical economist and also Marxist. ”
Just so that we are clear : one can be a classical economist but not necessarily a Marxist but to be a Marxist is to include the Classical school. See (Marxist scholar) Dobb, M. “Theories of Capital and Growth” – a book not for the faint of heart but excellent nonetheless.
“Still, in a broad piece speaking broadly about broad movements, what can one do but say that there is one (massive) group of economists who believe in capitalist equilibrium, and these all owe a debt to Smith”
This is where it gets sticky Helen. In Smith’s day (indeed Ricardo’s) equilibrium (to give it a name) was altered by quantity and NOT price. Selective reading from the Wealth of Nations encouraged the neo-classical school (Marshall in particular) to present “marginalist analysis in respect of concepts of equilibrium”. For the early 19th century is was self evident that many markets (particularly labour markets) did not clear at any price. This aspect was glossed over towards the end of the 19th century. As to equilibrium as generally perceived it is now, more a less, only a Supply-Side concept. A good example is that of the minimum wage in any country.
As an aside, graphs in economics are typically a’about. Price, is strictly – from the modern perspective, the independent variable but it is expressed as the dependent variable. Other examples exist.
“No economist would call Marx’s economics classical in the sense it is a understood by all economists.”
The word ‘classical’ does, as I have tried to explain, have a formal meaning in economics Helen.
“The whole “being creates consciousness” thing is a fundamental part of Marxism.” Agreed. I did read your “It is not human nature that shapes social existence, but social existence that shapes the effing human”. However, I would have put my heel into the presumption of “human nature” itself and have made it clear that such a hypothesis has no role in Marxism. Apologies for what confusion I may have caused.
“I say “a few” people read Marx. I didn’t say only a few or specify a number. You’re just being nit-picky, here, comrade!
No – not nit-picky – just making the point that Marx is better understood than most people would wish others to know – at least by the major decision-makers.
> I’d say Eagleton’s Why Marx was Right is a fine introduction
Agreed – and I was tempted to mention it but (just how might one put it) other than to say that Eagleton’s assessment of Economics is more comprehensive than that of theology; his Christian perspective notwithstanding or his remarks concerning evolution. That Eagleton seems not to care for atheists appears self-evident but it is fortunate for all that he made an exception in the case of Marx.
Only our beloved Kyle could threaten to write “The longer version would occupy too much space but I am happy to provide it.” than Marx, a man who couldn’t write for beans – that was Engels’ job.
And then appears to be intent upon doing so.
Classical economics has certainly bloody failed us. It has produced the cycle of endless growth on a demonstrably finite planet and indeed threatens our very existence. I do not know the philosophers, but I know a buggerup when I see one.
Happy Birthday Comrade