Your correspondent was hoping to avoid the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. The centenary of the Bolshevik revolution appeared to describe an arc through history. Two hundred? Meh.
But it doesn’t seem we can duck it, and that’s quite interesting. In 1998, when the sesquicentenary of the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto came around, there was a flurry of interest around its marvellous rhetoric, its prescience on market concentration etc etc. There was general agreement that it was otherwise archaic, and that was why it could be celebrated for its marvellous etc etc.
What a difference two decades make! Now, after the utter failure and discrediting of the neocon-neolib double act — Clinton in the White House, Blair newly installed in Number Ten at the time — there’s a new set of articles on Marx, and what a dangerous thinker he is, and shouldn’t be heeded. The IPA’s apparent best argument against Marx is that he once fucked his wife’s companion/maid. But then the IPA is all chinos and pearls and lives never really lived.
What sort of guide is Marx to the 21st century? Well, let’s leave his general theory of history and humanity until tomorrow. His particular theory of capitalism is that it is both another stage in human development, and a very special one — one in which the capacity to exchange things in terms of general quantitative value, and the ownership of the means to produce the things for exchange — produces a system which has the capacity to transform every aspect of life.
Capitalism arises in the 18th century, when merchant capital, agricultural change — clearances, creating a landless class — steady technical innovation (and a set of state and legal changes), lets this process off the leash. Capitalism is a “real abstraction” machine. Everything held to be particular and fenced off is eventually consumed.
For Marx, this autonomous power of capitalism — no one actually directing it — has the capacity to create a vast, global working class; people whose only commodity for sale is their own labour. Within capitalism we thus glimpse the possibility of human deliverance; productive forces developed to such a degree that we can collectively free ourselves from the brute rule of nature, and an opposition to capitalism’s brutalities that makes a world of co-operation, mutual respect and free development of all, actually visible, and then achievable.
The process of capital accumulation in this vast abstracting machine, Marx argued, would follow a course. Early competitive industry would be replaced by monopolies and the concentration of capital; wages, whatever specific rises might occur, would be suppressed and equalised over a general economy; capitalism’s increased composition by machine production would reduce cost and fill out existing demand leading to a fall in profits (which could be stayed, perhaps indefinitely, by state redistribution, manufacture of new desires, destructive production such as military spending, and periodic actual destruction such as war to reset profit ratios (a very limited account of that idea). As these contradictions tightened, the working class would become increasingly aware of themselves as a class, and not Presbyterians, whites, tradespeople, loyal residents of Bendigo, etc. They would see where the value in the system really came from and take it over.
That argument is presented as discredited because of a very singular event in 20th century history: the World Wars of 1914-1945, the collapse of the European Marxist movement into national patriotism, and the triumph of Russia’s Bolsheviks (who stabilised themselves as a directed, planned economy with no legal market). Marxist parties that had advanced more complex ideas of capitalist-socialist transition became nationally based social democracies. Marxism ceased to be a critique of capitalism, and became a program of political-economic implementation under all conditions, from the 1920s-1980s.
Now that’s swept away, we can see the critique again. Marx forecast monopoly capital, increased inequality, downward pressure, and accumulation untameable even when it threatens the viability of all life. He forecast the manufacture of new scarcities when the old ones were saturated, a decline in profits and economic development when capitalism left its “high” phase of predominantly industrial production, and the rise of forms of “barbarism” as a response to this if a genuinely socialist opposition is defeated or scattered.
Liberalism, with its notion of catallactic spontaneous order suggests a world that recomposes itself periodically, with market clearing, new opportunities, the non-coagulation of monopoly, the triumph of dialogue and interest over “atavistic” ideas of nation and blood, and the spread of rationality as the base political form, with the spread of the market.
When you look at the West, from Putin across to Trump, which approach gives us a better picture?
So where’s the revolution? In part two tomorrow.
I wrote: hardly anyone can explain why we shouldn’t waste our time with unfalsifiable theories
Kyle replied: I tend to walk away deeming such people their own worst enemies.
I can’t tell anyone what to do here, Kyle, but I can’t see that as sustainable. As I’ve argued recently in a Comment elsewhere: we’re a species whose evolution saw us cooperating most easily in insular bands of thirty intimates. Our ability to create and enforce humane laws past that size is a breathtaking achievement comparable to the development of agriculture, yet we’re still struggling to make such laws work beyond the late mediaeval concept of a nation-state.
I don’t know by what means we can scale that to north of ten billion, but given how subject we are to tribal group-think, I don’t see how critical (empirical) practice won’t be part of any sustainable solution. I therefore view empirical thought as a right both owed and owing, like integrity, dignity or justice.
I wrote: If we cannot trust our intellectuals to respect us and have faith in us then it’s very hard to hold discussion with people we think will leave us feeling powerless, shamed and unsafe Kyle asked: If we undertake considerations or make concessions […] then where is the (mathematical) limit? Again, I can’t tell anyone what to do, but I’ve already explained my limit before: my tolerance for ignorance, laziness and dishonesty expires whenever I see systematic hurt, harm and destruction justified and defended through magical thinking.
Kyle clarified of Marx’s thought: Labour MUST be socially necessary Okay, but that’s an even worse indictment, Kyle, because it both requires and asserts a metaphysical, omniscient and inherently conservative view of both consequence and a functioning society.
As a single example, a hacked-up chair could be invaluable as a symbol, depending on what kind of chair it was and who sat in it before it was hacked. (Consider a hacked throne, for example.) But you won’t know its symbolic value until other people observe it: hack it too much and it won’t look like the original throne; hack it too little and it won’t be a powerful enough symbol. This result is is nigh-inconceivable in some prescriptive philosophy of value, yet trivial to observe by experiment, as presumably vendors of ‘distressed’ clothes, dusty vintage wine-bottles and ‘relic’d’ guitars already know.
Marx is relevant but the game has changed I agree that he’s relevant historically, just not as an authority. We know from observation that humans are capable of both individualistic and collectivistic behaviours; will support both privatised and socialised resources; can both centralise and decentralise administration. So these aren’t ideologies but social levers, capable of being moved in response to necessity. From levers we can form an array of strategies suited to different scales and circumstances: what works best on a Martian colony of thirty is unlikely to resemble what works best in a metropolis of 100 million. It makes no sense to me then to build social and psychological identity from expedient convention, because the expedient itself may change over time. Why would a species so adaptable ever want to make itself needlessly stupid?
I have enjoyed the discussion and, believe it or not, have learnt (I think) a good deal Me too, Kyle. I seriously appreciate well-thought contributions, even when I disagree with the conclusions. Historically, this hasn’t been Crikey’s usual mode, but it does seem to be finding a place.
The IPA “all chinos and pearls and lives never really lived”, so exquisitely written – and true
I’m glad you’re contributing, Guy.
I don’t agree with your framing but since you haven’t gotten to the meat yet, I look forward to reading your future contributions and taking them together.
Overall, Guy : not too bad – with a bit of sandpaper on the edges (not the ball) etc. required. I’ll assume that this installment is in draft.
“The IPA’s apparent best argument against Marx is that he once fucked his wife’s companion/maid”
The same “qualification” could be awarded to Thomas Jefferson, Crover Cleveland, any number of the British astiros, and not a few civic fathers and well known pastoralists in Australia (and elsewhere).
“For Marx, this autonomous power of capitalism — no one actually directing it ”
Marx made no mention of any particular body directing capitalism (the locomotive force as he described it) but take a flick through Ralph Miliband’s “The State in Capitalist Society”. The concept of a ruling class (united by common long-term interests and not by FB) is only too apparent (and real). If the surname is familiar then there may be a reason for the familiarity.
“As these contradictions tightened, the working class would become increasingly aware of themselves as a class and not [as] .. [xyz etc]”
It is interesting to observe that Marxism has done more for females that any other creed yet, from the (generalised) perspective of feminism Marxism presents the greatest contradiction to (and for particularly “eco”] feminism.
“That argument is presented as discredited because of a very singular event in 20th century history: the World Wars of 1914-1945, the collapse of the European Marxist movement into national patriotism, and the triumph of Russia’s Bolsheviks”
A tad “glossy” Guy but likely written, possibly, for the sake economy or brevity rather than accuracy. One has to take into account the advent of (universal old age) pensions, continued factory reform and improvements in (the) Education (Acts). Then one has to consider the War itself; a grubby squabble between the grand kids of Queen Victoria (over colonies) with the unintended benefit of zapping ‘the sick man of Europe’ (or
Turkey for those whose history doesn’t extend beyond the destruction of the twin-towers {2001} or the Berlin Wall).
> Liberalism, with its notion of catallactic spontaneous order
I am anything but so sure but I shall await the tidings of the morrow.
“When you look at the West, from Putin across to Trump, which approach gives us a better picture?”
The question rather depends upon the criterion for “better”. Its a long story but Trump is to be given some credit for the astonishing improvements in relations between N. & S. Korea. On the other hand Putin has kept NATO out if his back yard. Putin has six more years; Trump as about two and a half more years (with a possible re-election). Trump has an interesting “end game” in the Middle East and Putin doesn’t care for the influence. Are you illustrating a Hegelian (qua Marxist) dialectic here Guy?
As an aside the “neocon-neolib double act”, as you put it, is just what secured the Presidency for Trump. Trump is not to be dismissed out of hand
I will suggest that Xi is also to be taken into account with a comparison of Putin and Trump and, ipso facto, the recognition of near irrelevance of the (leaders of) countries
in Europe – to the word stage; including the UN and (a more remote second) NATO.
The two (latter) organisations were constructed to preserve capitalism!
Kyle wrote: Trump is to be given some credit for the astonishing improvements in relations between N. & S. Korea
I’ve wondered about that Kyle. Causation or merely correlation? How would we test?
(I realise I’m asking you the very kind of off-topic question that I normally swerve but you’re confident of the answer while I’m not. What’s the most reliable test, to your mind?)
The question is anything but “off topic” Ruv because central to the criticisms of Marxist theory (either fair or unfair) is that Marx (and Marxist ideology generally) does not take account of capitalism’s capacity to get itself off the hook whenever some kind of serious event occurs or could occur.
In the case sited the share markets were anticipating a major revision of share value world word-wide with the impending stouch. The media was very careful not to spook the horses but a heap of rattling (not least by Japan’s Mr Abe) was occurring. Assuming that the stock (in general) is overvalued at something like 12-20% a correction of about 1.2 times that factor was not out of the question.
We can test on appealing to ‘p’ values Ruv. Assuming the null hypothesis (Ho – viz., Trump not being a factor) I put it to anyone that Xi telling our little mate Kim to get his butt to Beijing ASP would not have occurred without a significant external cause. The sanctions that Xi applied to N. Korea were intended to bring our little mate to heel! In this regard Xi has (again?) out-manipulated Trump.
Kim (of late) has unified the time zone (with S. Korea – having defiantly altered the time zone some time ago) and is jabbing on with Moon as if they are old school mates. Is such a change in heart over 12 months (indeed less than two months) a 180?
The likelihood of observing what has been observed (ceteras parapus – or by chance if one prefers), I suggest is slight indeed and I would put it at most unlikely; indeed fractional of a percent. Conclusion : reject the Null Hypothesis.
I have made mention of perfect worlds (or rather the absence of them) in previous posts but combining (e.g.) D.R Cox – in my opinion the most eminent Statistician ever – (not a phrase I chuck about willy nilly) with Arthur Conan Doyle : “whatever remains, however unlikely, can be considered the truth” ought to guide us.
Nice to know that, yet again, various pairs of eyes have been over the the article when it was on hold.
Kyle wrote: “whatever remains, however unlikely, can be considered the truth” ought to guide us.
Yes, that was my starting-point too but got me only to speculation. I ended up with three possible conjectures that I couldn’t pick between from available evidence:
1. Kim now sees his country as a credible nuclear power (or believes it will be so recognised), and feels he can engage from a less isolationist position;
2. The Kim dynasty perceives growing economic and geopolitical threats to its survival or prosperity and seeks a broader rapprochement to sustain it; or
3. Trump’s is the first administration a malignant, narcissistic, power-mad and paranoiac North Korean dictatorship feels it can treat with, and the one it feels it can get the best deals from.
These conjectures aren’t independent, of course. I just don’t know how to weight them.
And it’s the weighting of them that I think is off-topic. I think your broader point is well-made that privileged self-interest can bail out societies with entrenched inequity, sometimes very efficiently. Since I agree with that, I don’t really need to argue over the example. I was just curious. 🙂
Good grief! Let’s take that ball away. As Guy has implicitly recognised, Marx did not see himself self as writing cookbooks for the kitchens of the future. Perhaps he should have but what Kim Jong-un is up to in Korea really has nothing to do with a revolution to overthrow capitalism, for which Marx saw himself as providing those with a stake in the end of capitalism with reasons based on the facts of capitalism.
The crucial question for Marx was the capacity of the working class to form itself as a class conscious of its own interests and conscious of its stake in the end of capitalism and able to organise itself to bring that about. Capitalism will always have a “capacity to get itself off the hook” in the absence of an organised working class with allies capable of ending the rule of the leaders of capitalism. Marx’s only problem was that he was a bit too confident about the ability of the working class to be aware of its situation in sufficient numbers to get the overthrow underway, given the capacity of the leaders of the capitalist class to misshape working class wants and ideas with all the propaganda means available to them.
As to women, what on earth does this garbled paragraph mean: “It is interesting to observe that Marxism has done more for females that any other creed yet, from the (generalised) perspective of feminism Marxism presents the greatest contradiction to (and for particularly “eco”] feminism.”
Marxism does not contradict feminism. Marx was himself opposed to the subordination of wives to husbands and any idea that women are best suited to being wives and mothers. That he wrote only about capitalism in a partially finished way does not imply that he opposed feminism, especially in the forms that he did not live to see.
Finally, Kyle is awfully condescending to Guy who has, in my view, written a really good piece celebrating the 200 anniversary of Marx’s birth. Much better than Kyle’s commentary which waxes on far too much and too glibly about the world today.
“As Guy has implicitly recognised, Marx did not see himself self as writing cookbooks for the kitchens of the future.”
Wrong – I’m sorry to say! Have you actually read the Manifesto or, more definitively, The Critique of the Gotha Program? .pdf’s abound on the net.
> but what Kim Jong-un is up to in Korea really has nothing to do with a revolution to overthrow capitalism,
Now, do come on : a bit of thought here please. Capitalism will NEVER be “overthrown” but it will undergo any number of mods. We have witnessed
any number of modifications to Trade Practices and IR (Work Relations etc). The POINT of the remark was to illustrate (as Ruv, for one, recogniesed, (and I will quote Ruv rather than myself) “that privileged self-interest can bail out societies with entrenched inequity, sometimes very efficiently”. That was the point (that others seem to have taken) Ian.
“The crucial question for Marx was the capacity of the working class to form itself as a class conscious of its own interests and conscious”
Which it just could not do. Others, on this list, have remarked upon the Bakunin/Marx correspondence and well as myself. As to contemporary Australia
(as an example) one only has to reflect on some of the comments on these lists (which amounts to the better part of what one encounters from the general public)
“As to women, what on earth does this garbled paragraph mean: “It is interesting to observe that Marxism has done more for females that any other creed yet, from the (generalised) perspective of feminism Marxism presents the greatest contradiction to (and for particularly “eco”] feminism.”
The comment may appear “garbled” depending upon the reader’s comprehension of Marxism and Sociology – including Feminist studies. To describe it so amounts to a display if ignorance.
> Marxism does not contradict feminism.
I did NOT clam that Marx did. I emphasised that in Russia and China (and elsewhere) the females were educated along with males; a first for such countries.
Please read what is there (in contrast to what you think is there).
Feminism, and particularly, Eco Feminism (do you know what Eco Feminism is ? VERY big deal in Sociology/Womens’ Studies Programmes in the 90s but now entirely discredited)
Feminism, just consider the recent address by Hillary in Melbourne (at $200/seat), is fundamentally anti-male or at least male conscious in respect of power. This paradigm is contradictory with Marxist philosophy which seeks to articulate the case that the inherent conflict is with capitalists and those who have (i.e. are compelled for want of an alternative) to sell their labour-power (or work for a salary/wages if one prefers). From the point of Marxism feminism is a “divide and conquer” strategy articulated by Capitalists. There actually is some discussion on this argument and all the attendant PC. Marxism argues for equality between males and females but Feminism illustrates what it sees as distinctive differences; Eco feminism in particular (which is blatantly anti-Marxist). Do you wish for further discussion or have I made the point?
Actually if you remain unconvinced, Razer 11 May) has made the case for me in her article :”Hillary Clinton’s religious, if nonsensical, performance to Melbourne’s true believers” were Ms Razer observes : “When Annabel Crabb, host for the event, Gillard or Clinton posed this question — “aren’t those who suffer misogyny, which is all women, intrinsically qualified for power?”– most everyone agreed.”
Well that gem will save some female candidates a task when they present for the forthcoming by-elections; just claim the affects of misogyny and the are arguments from a male candidate will be as effective as those of an empty chair.
“Finally, Kyle is awfully condescending to Guy who has, in my view, written a really good piece celebrating the 200 anniversary of Marx’s birth.”
I have been reading Mr Rundle for (only) about a year or so and from what he has written over that period Mr seems to score between 30% and 71%; so
a basic pass overall. The most recent article on Sraffa (comments pending) is deserving of mention (favourably) but NOT for the reason that Mr Rundle offers.
I put it to you to identify ONE condescending remark that I have made towards Rundle. I have made any number of qualifying and correcting remarks but no
condescending remarks. Ditto for your remarks to my comments.
Ian (I hope I may call you Ian) wrote: Marx did not see himself as writing cookbooks for the kitchens of the future.
I realise your issue is with Kyle’s comment and apologise for intruding, but you made a broad ambit claim that talks directly to the central topic, and for the life of me, I can’t see how you can substantiate it.
In my day-job I work as an informatics consultant: my job is to help people make better decisions on the information they have (as well as how to find better information and manage it better.) I founded and run a company that does this, we teach others to do it, and I’ve been doing it for over a quarter of a century. We have also been a sometime donor to the St James Ethics Centre: the ethics of knowledge and information management matter a great deal to us.
As a consultant, if I make predictions that I claim are certainties, write a road-map for how bad things will inevitably occur and a prescription for what ought to be done about it, who ought to do it and roughly how it ought to be done, then a client acting on that advice (and society in general) can hold me ethically, professionally and legally responsible for any sloppiness, ignorance and error that I fail to correct or at least promptly disclose.
I can’t squidge out later on and saying ‘it was just an opinion’, and that is as it should be: a profession is only a profession by reason of its knowledge, rigour, ethical prioritisation of public good over private benefit, and accountability within its practices.
If you claim professional authority then any professional reputation attaches to that. So if you don’t know while offering advice, you must explicitly say what you don’t know and how much you don’t know it. That’s a professional duty of care. Anything else is vanity, intellectual dishonesty and an abuse of public trust.
So if you think Marx wasn’t writing a Bible: that he wasn’t claiming authoritative, prescriptive, near-prophetic consultancy for his and future generations, there’s an easy way to prove it. You need only quote key parts of his expositions that say ‘This is just a guess: I don’t really know’, and point out that where instead of saying ‘must’, he consistently says ‘might’. Like this:
‘Workers of the world, please consider uniting. In my opinion, you have nothing to lose but your chains, but please perform your own comprehensive risk analysis before undertaking any precipitous action’.
That sort of thing. 🙂
As for Kyle’s tone, it can be hard to read, but he’s not slow or stinting to voice respect and acknowledgement for ideas he considers good. and from what I’ve seen he doesn’t mind who voices them. Of the regular commenters here, if I had to place a bet on someone who’d quickly acknowledge a fact or good idea from someone he didn’t actually like, I’d give Kyle short odds. If so, that’s not talking down; it’s just putting substance over speaker. I don’t think Kyle would be slow to say he knows better if he disagreed, but that’s not condescending either: it’s either supportable or its not. (And Crikey’s journalists are not slow to adopt that posture at times too.)
My suggestion: if you don’t like a commentor’s tone, you don’t have to read the comment. But if you choose to engage, focus on fact, and let the tone look after itself.
I look forward to the prospect of reading representative quotes supporting your claim above.
Kyle, I regard the following as condescending but, of course, you might not: “Overall, Guy : not too bad – with a bit of sandpaper on the edges (not the ball) etc. required. I’ll assume that this installment is in draft.”
Ruv, “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains” is not a prophecy about the future but an incitement, which I dealt with by saying that Marx was very keen to urge workers to become political agents and overthrow capitalism but was not so keen to draw detailed pictures of a future society, apart from saying that it should be a free, democratic society in which free cooperation would be the basis of production of goods. There is a case for saying that he should have been more prepared to go into how a future society works, as has David Schweikart in “After Capitalism”. Of course you can’t incite workers to unite with “please consider uniting’. My comment about condescension is just a caution and an incitement for a writer to treat others with more respect, as Kylehas also clearly failed treat me.
Ian wrote: Ruv, “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains” is not a prophecy about the future but an incitement,
Yes, I agree that it is. But it’s incitement built on prediction, just as: ‘Run! Flee the fire! Flee for your lives!’
Whether such an exhortation is ethical when a professional utters it, hinges not merely on conviction and good wishes, but the data gathered. The specifics I believe the ‘Paris Revue Positivistes’ were demanding are nothing more than what we see all the time today: the demand for systematically-gathered, independently-reviewed and sufficiently accurate data.
A key medical ethic is Primum non nocere: first, do no harm. That principle underpins professional ethics everywhere: you don’t seek to profit yourself from avoidable harm done to others, including risks passed on through the reckless exploitation of your own professional reputation.
Reckless professional advice based on weak or inadequate data never subjected to peer review breaks this principle, and can do untold harm in practice. (Consider antivax reporting, for example.)
I haven’t read the critiques of the ‘Paris Revue Positivistes’ but the role of positivism has been critical to giving us the science and engineering we have today. Whatever Marx may have thought of positivism, invoking his irresponsibility doesn’t absolve us of our responsibilities.
Ruv, the incitement is not like shouting “fire”. Marx does not think there is an easy way out or that workers suffer from a momentary crisis. He thinks they are exploited and oppressed and does not tell them to rise up against capitalism tomorrow. So the stuff about professional responsibility is misplaced.
On the other hand, you can say that it would have been better if Marx had discussed a future society with more than saying at first the society will replace capitalist forms of distribution with “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” until we get to a more productive world in which it can be said “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. ( critique of the gotha program).
However, Marx did not see himself as a superior being leading the otherwise unknowing masses to a new world. So all your talk about “responsibility “ seems to beside the point. Nor should we suppose that Marx was like god and could do nothing wrong. But lists of errors while useful for the future don’t mean that we should should ignore the massive positive contribution he made and regret that all the rubbish directed at discrediting him has made people in our world more vulnerable to exploitation and oppression.
Ian wrote: the stuff about professional responsibility is misplaced.
Ian I’m sorry but at this point I’m too confused to reply.
To help lift my confusion, please could you list for us the key professions that you believe should be invited to claim prescient knowledge, terrify the public, incite them to dangerous action, destabilise the rule of law, cripple existing markets, destroy consumer and investor confidence, claim the authority to nullify existing agreements between consenting parties, uproot careers, destroy individual autonomy and offer financial and political advice without having first subjected any apocalyptic and prescient knowledge-claims to transparent, rigorous, extensive, evidence-based testing using best-practice methods.
To help, I’ll start you off by listing Marx’s generally-accepted avocations:
* Economist;
* Academic;
* Activist;
* Lobbyist;
* Philosopher;
* Sociologist;
* Journalist;
* …
Please could you list any other professions you think should be added?
Are there any professions you think should not be on that list? If not, why not?
Thanks.
As for Kyle’s consistency: first we get “> Marxism does not contradict feminism.
I did NOT clam that Marx did.” followed by ” From the point of Marxism feminism is a “divide and conquer” strategy articulated by Capitalists.” Really? What is Kyle’s view exactly?
Then “Wrong – I’m sorry to say! Have you actually read the Manifesto or, more definitively, The Critique of the Gotha Program? .pdf’s abound on the net.” Well, yes, I have read both. The first ends with a fairly modest political program but consists mainly of a critique of capitalism and political parties who seek social change, especially those who try to set up models of a new society. The other is a discussion of the political program of a german political party in which Marx discusses the stages of a transition from capitalism to a future society, neither of which is discussed in ways that contradict Marx’s criticisms of setting u models of a new society in the communist manifesto. I find your comment a bit patronising, Kyle and I don’t think it helps your argument to claim some superior standpoint.
The Critique, you seem to think, “is a discussion of the political program”. In fact, read critically, the Critique is much more than that. Even at the time of publication various organisations were becoming confused as to what “Marxism” actually is/was. The purpose of the Critique was to correct the heresies that had already attached themselves to the Manifesto. Using the word “cookbook” doesn’t help. Let’s use the language of the 19th century. That approach will not risk mistakes of interpretation.
“I don’t think it helps your argument to claim some superior standpoint” is an interpretation (of yours) which I am unable to do anything about. It is open to you (or anyone) to comment upon or refute a statement that I have made (with evidence) but referring to “standpoints” doesn’t assist anything or anyone either. As I have mentioned, further (currently embargoed) comments will follow tomorrow (with any luck).
“Now, do come on : a bit of thought here please. Capitalism will NEVER be “overthrown” but it will undergo any number of mods. ” Not only is this a bit patronising but one can only ask how Kyle knows so certainly that capitalism will “NEVER” be overthrown. I would have thought it quite possible that it will.
I won’t take a side on that, Ian, but I’ve previously argued that capitalism is intellectually vacuous: a noun without an active verb. I don’t know how one eradicates the indefinable in the first place, but when we come to specifics, what precisely is to be eradicated?
* A desire for short-term gains to enable longer-term strategies?
* A mutually-beneficial exchange of value?
* Prudent accumulation against future need?
* Sexual competition?
* The social competition that expresses most sexual competition?
* The material differentiation that expresses the social competition that expresses most sexual competition?
* Multiple competing strategies exploring suspected opportunities?
* Entrepreneurial redirection of resources from poorly-performing initiatives to better-performing ones?
* Cronyism?
Any of the above could be identified as part of capitalism, yet which of these can any form of governance eradicate? And when you have all of that, what part of the nebulous idea called capitalism don’t you have?
You can certainly modify the behaviours above though.
I don’t know whether that’s Kyle’s argument. It’s not a question I’d weigh in on because capitalism itself doesn’t seem well-defined to me. But if we’re discussing recognisable behaviours, anyone who believes the entire list above can be eradicated sustainably using any method or technology we’ve actually constructed is more than welcome to supply supporting data.
I have two embargoed articles; one relating to the sequel of this matter and the other to your “objections”. With any luck all will be revealed tomorrow.
To be blunt, Ian, mate, you’re a bit like a dog with a soft toy [regarding your heel-nipping posts] in as much that you will not let it go (and you’re not alone on this list). Herewith a few remarks in rebuttal (to your remarks) in more or less reverse order that you have offered them.
> Kyle knows so certainly that capitalism will “NEVER” be overthrown.
You may (but likely may not) have heard of G.F. Hardy : a mathematician at Cambridge who died in 1947. He bet a respondent a thousand pounds (about three years salary of a bank manager in those days) to a half-penny (less than half a cent) that the sun would not rise tomorrow – after having been similarly criticised. Some features of this world prevail as definitions (duh). Have you any idea as to what constitutes the “world economy” and the attendant vested interest and and any idea of the ignorance of the general elector? Somerset Maugham (G.P for the slums of London in the late 19th c. and author) certainly did.
You SHOULD be able to identify the “world-order” institutions (IMF, WTO, WHO, UN, NATO – are 5 sufficient?) whose purpose it is to guarantee the existence of capitalism (at least for the foreseeable future – i.e. the 21st centenary at least).
As to the current project on Marx, I notice that you have yet to grace the article by Rundel (2nd installment) “The crisis in the Marxist Tradition” with an informed comment whereas I have, more or less, rewritten Rundle’s article for him. I completed it about three hours ago and it did take an hour and a bit or so to write (having acquired the references that I deemed pertinent). You’ll see it on Monday when the embargo is lifted on my submission. I am gratified that my submission will be analysised prior to release to the readership.
“Thus the Paris Revue Positiviste reproaches me in that, on the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the other hand — imagine! — confine myself to the mere critical analysis of actual facts, instead of writing recipes(Comtist ones?) for the cook-shops of the future.” If you follow on from that, you wills ee that Marx does not disown what the Paris Revue Positiviste says of him”
Let me ask of you “Just what is your (economic) background”? Have you read any of the references that I have offered or indeed that others have offered. On this account I refer to the articles by Marx in the N.Y. Tribune. I’ll wager a grand (given the above “gem”) that you have not read one article that Marx submitted for the N.Y Tribune. You do, to your credit, seem to be somewhat familiar with a few secondary sources but that hardly suffices as sufficient background for a discussion that you find yourself engaged. The articles of Marx for the Tribune are replete with “throw-away” lines and only an idiot would take these “throw-away” lines and presume to present them as “Marxism”. Enough said (or written) I think.
As to the “offending” item (above) that you have selected as representative of my criticism I’m inclined to ask if you have had anything assessed (real-world project proposal or an item of research at a university) by knowledgeable people. Such comments are typical of assessing the (peer) work of others. Then the assessor (as I do) directs the attention to where the sandpaper needs to be applied.
The subscribers at Crikey tend to aggregate into two groups. One group, sustained by its own prejudices and ignorance, is determined not to learn anything new. Indeed they take exception to a contrary view. Others do have a genuine desire for point counter-point discussion for the purpose of “really” nutting-the-problem-out. The classification, to which I allude, seems to me to be a definitie illustration of the 80:20 rule.
Opinions being blurted and endorsed by by students supervised by well intentioned but ill-trained primary school teachers (secondary come to that) are NOT equally valid or relevant or coherent. Perhaps your schooling reflects such a “safe” environment and being confronted may be distressing or come as something of a shock. It actually isn’t my problem.
As I have pointed out in the second piece by Rundle (currently embargoed) but motivated by some of the remarks by you and others : “I am happy to be “taken-on” by “all-comers” but I do anticipate (and presume) that the references are familiar to any proponent who wishes to take me on.”
My rebuttal of 12 May at 17:13 to your “Good grief! Let’s take that ball away” (12 May 14:41) appears to have edified you although, apparently, you don’t care
for the “tone”. .mmm.. well there is nothing I can do about that. I’m not interested in (perceptions of) “tone” but only in rigorous analysis. Nothing else counts or matters.
Oh dear. I have too little time to keep up Kyle. I have heard of G. F. Hardy and even studied his book. I have read some of Marx’s articles for the NYT, and much else besides. I have read a fair bit of economics. I do not think it is yet a science but it has lots of (highly unrealistic) mathematical modelling I would not have a clue about the contributors to Crikey
Then, may I assume that we are in fundamental agreement? If not, then it doesn’t matter greatly. A note on the social sciences follow another (and more germane) post of yours
Actually no one’s been banging on about Marx in my reading sphere, except Crikey in the last week or so.
yep this is the only media platform I’ve seen Marx mentioned
It’s hard to know how many people identify as Marxists, Bref, but we can find some estimates. It’s generally recognised that there’s more Marxism in academia than in most other sectors, and more in the humanities and social sciences than in other academic fields. The US might not be representative, but a ten year-old working paper studying the social and political views of US professors [1] found the highest proportion of self-identified Marxists in the social sciences, and even then, less than one in five so self-identified. (For comparison that proportion lies between the proportion of self-identified Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism.)
In another comparison, the Labour Left tends to occupy 40-65% of ALP state conferences, and the ALP might see 35% first preferences in national voting — so we might imagine that up to 14-28% of Australian voters are sympathetic to some Marxist ideas.
Those estimates may not be enough to directly inform kitchen-table conversations of many ordinary Australians, but can still help shape the language and ideas by which political discussions are framed.
So you might not see Marx himself debated much outside Crikey (I don’t either), but there’s evidence he’s there in the cultural context still.
Well, the following quote from Marx’s afterward to the second edition of capital has much the same meaning as I attributed to him: “Thus the Paris Revue Positiviste reproaches me in that, on the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the other hand — imagine! — confine myself to the mere critical analysis of actual facts, instead of writing recipes(Comtist ones?) for the cook-shops of the future.” If you follow on from that, you wills ee that Marx does not disown what the Paris Revue Positiviste says of him
That’s helpful, Ian, thank you. I now understand where you formed the idea, and agree that as quoted, it represents the claim you made.
However, you’ve quoted an afterword in a revised edition: an apologium. That doesn’t change what was written in the exposition, nor its forseeable impacts, nor the ethical and intellectual responsibilities of having published it, and I don’t think it resiles from fundamental questions that any modern scientist or engineer would ask of anyone claiming knowledge, and which were well-enough known to ‘positivists’ in Marx’s time to ask too:
1. If you claim to know what will happen, but not how and when, why should that claim be trusted?
2. If you claim to know definitively what others should do, but not how they should do it, when they should do it, where they should do it, or what they should expect to see when along the way, why should such a claim to knowledge of causality and consequence be believed?
The point being: astrology, homeopathy, psychics and millennial religions all claim such knowledge. Even if you believe one might be true, they can’t all be true. It should be evident that logic alone can’t distinguish accuracy here; anyone can concoct such a story and even if it’s logically coherent and consistent with fact, the probability of getting it right by chance alone is infinitesimal because there are so many wrong stories. Or as is generally accepted nowadays: metaphysical argument may be conviction, but it isn’t knowledge.
But if it isn’t knowledge then there’s an ethical implication: prescribing risky, irreversible action on supposed intellectual authority drawn merely from conviction is ethically indefensible, no matter how well-intended it might be. Even if it produced a benefit, you can’t tell whether it was consequential, and when it produces harm the advice cannot escape central blame, no matter how many others may be at fault.
It could be argued that when an author has built reputation and sales from deliberately trying to influence people, hand-waving and saying ‘I don’t write cookbooks’ is cowardly, corrupt and fundamentally dishonest. (In fact, that’s precisely what I argued earlier.)
There’s more than one way to consider ethical questions, and my argument may not convince you of its immediate value, but I hope to convince you that it’s at least a valid alternative viewpoint, and shouldn’t be dismissed without further consideration.
At the very least, I believe there’s a real discussion to be had here. (I also believe it has been long-settled in economics.) What Marx described as ‘positivism’ is now an epistemological norm everywhere outside of philosophy (and also within a lot of philosophy too.) As 20th century science philosopher Karl Popper described it, it’s called ‘falsifiability’: you don’t offer conviction as truth just because you’re convinced. You offer an hypothesis, a putative conclusion and evidence, and let others retest it to their own satisfaction.
I don’t personally blame Marx for taking a different view — his was a different age, and we’ve had a lot more discussion since about what knowledge actually means. However I do hold accountable modern people who claim to have actionable knowledge, but can’t say how to independently validate and verify it. I don’t believe Marx’s squidge-out afterword can or should have weight in any serious venture today.
Ruv, the afterword is not an “apologium”. It is a response to reviews among other things.
Secondly, I wonder whether you’ve read Capital. In it you will find evidence for what Marx thinks world changing and wrong with capitalism in the sort of ways that scientists in the nineteenth century established theories. But I really can’t engage with someone who thinks that Marx “terrified” people anymore than a physicist who proves the second law of thermodynamics “terrifies” people by showing that all their glasses and crockery and even their knives will one day not work.
Marx did try to show that Capitalism was an inherently unstable social order (noun without a verb???) held together by the threat of unemployment and violence and did
predict that it would
be overthrown by a
political revolution
Led by the working class.
But with such divergences on science, ethics (it is all a matter of concern with professional responsibility rather than a response to injustice and suffering-( I believe that violent and controlling husbands should be overthrown and their families broken up, to speak of matters on the scale of the family) and the nature of science (few are positivists today) that there is little point in continuing to debate in the confines of Crikey.
Ian wrote: In [Capital] you will find evidence for what Marx thinks world changing and wrong with capitalism in the sort of ways that scientists in the nineteenth century established theories.
That is not correct, Ian. Marx argued the way that economists of the 19th century argued, but not the way that (say) physicists or chemists of that era did: the manner that the Royal Society had already established as a standard for science two centuries earlier.
The way economists of the 19th century argued more closely resembled philosophy than science, and this is also true of (say) 19th century psychology. A key reason was lack of tools and processes to gather data; another was a slow cultural change: in emerging disciplines that are now scientific, it was still held legitimate to represent philosophy as truth rather than as we now most commonly see it: provocative and logically-coherent conjecture that may have no bearing on what we actually discover when we experiment and observe.
Your quoted apologium (yes, I believe it is excuse-making) suggests that Marx himself was aware of the demand for data and specific, falsifiable prediction, but thought he could excuse himself from the scientific obligation by retreating into the linguistic sophistry of philosophy: one that gave him the benefit of claiming academic authority and garnering the rewards of influence, while shifting any risk for his ignorance and error to the very people he exhorted. I’d be happy to be corrected by anyone who has read extensively on his biographies, but that defensiveness toward positivism is how it reads to me.
Regardless, in making dire pronouncements without hard data, he was acting more like a clergyman or an astrologer than a scientist, and if you don’t find his apocalyptic predictions of ever-falling wages and worsening economic crises alarming — especially in a nineteenth-century economic context with burgeoning urban populations but virtually no welfare system, and where famines were still known in Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, Turkey, India and China, then I cannot begin to think why.
Marx was extremely well-read. He doubtless knew what the Royal Society’s motto nullius in verba (‘On the word of no one’) meant. It entirely contextualised the ‘Positivist’ push for truth-testing by systematic data-gathering. And obviously, it wasn’t just the British pushing — after all, the Enlightenment had already been going on for two centuries, and the French were in the thick of it.
Perhaps a more honest, humble and ethical approach might have been to say: ‘Look, in response to the demands of the Paris Revue, I can’t supply the extensive data that would confirm or refute my theses. To be honest, I don’t know anyone who can at present. I therefore acknowledge that it’s only a conjecture, and won’t be testable until we can find ways to gather the data we need, and formulate methods to test my broad prescriptions.
In truth, I can’t even say how I’d falsify my conjectures even if I had the data, so I acknowledge that my ideas may be incomplete or intellectually flawed. Since they’re only conjectural and I don’t even know if they’re empirically valid, I cannot claim the truth of my predictions, and thus relinquish any right to insist on the moral necessity of prompt collective action.
But I’d still urge interested communities to at least experiment with other methods than laissez-faire capitalism — especially to explore the possible benefits of collectivism — and publish what they discover, because capitalism’s long-term prospects gravely concern me.’
Actually, if he’d said that he’d have my unreserved respect. But he didn’t, as you know.
But that’s perhaps not the most important point. The most important point is that today, we must take into account what we know, and make full use of the knowledge, tools and methods now available to us. We cannot use an appeal to antique authority to exempt ourselves from the need for hard data today before exhorting people to do this or that to their putative benefit.
You agree with this yourself, I think Ian, because you totally swerved my request for you to list the professions you’d exempt from professional responsibility for supporting their pronouncements with hard data.
And that’s my central point: nobody should argue Marxism today the way Marx did. Claiming that he was a scientist of his time is outright false — Newton or Darwin, he was not; arguing that didn’t set out to be a scientist likely doesn’t excuse him historically or ethically; and neither argument excuses his advocates using philosophical and rhetorical arguments today.