7 ms·

It continues today in the social sciences: "Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. The share rises to 5% in the h

It continues today in the social sciences: "Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. The share rises to 5% in the humanities. The shocker, though, is that as recently as 2006, about 18% of social scientists self-identified as Marxists" http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1...

blackbagboys 9y ago
Marxism and Stalinism are different things.
- gnarbarian 9y ago
  Yes I agree. Just as there is a difference between theory and practice. Marxism is to Stalinism as theory is to practice.
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    Marxism doesn't have to be undemocratic. Isn't the losing pattern here - dictatorship vs democracy, not Marxism vs Capitalism?
    - gnarbarian 9y ago
      Do you have any examples of lasting democracy in communist states? Maybe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        Isn't North Korea aka DPRK a dictatorship? Pretty much every authoritarian regime calls themselves a Republic / Democracy. It's become a long standing joke by now.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        He's being sarcastic. He could answer his question with a five second Google if he had a genuine, sincere interest in learning about the subject.
        Fins 9y ago
        You can also find a "proof" that the Earth is flat after 5 seconds of googling. Finding a non-dictatorial marxist state in real life would be slightly more difficult, as such a thing had never existed.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        If you have difficulty accepting anything that doesn't confirm your bias then, yes, I can see it might be difficult, otherwise it's really quite easy to accept that, for example, the current Prime Minister of Nepal is a Communist. Good luck with your flat Earth stuff though.
        Fins 9y ago
        Is Nepal a marxist country? Nice try with a total non-sequitur, though? Still no example of a country simultaneously democratic and marxist, though. Probably because they only excist in that mythical universe where communists are any better than nazis.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Tiananmen Square = True Communism Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) = not Communist Got it.
        Fins 9y ago
        A very nice example of reading what you want to read, isn't it? Is Nepal a communist country or not? Nice of you to acknowledge that true communism is equivalent to mass murder, though. And Nepal, having been a republic for less than 10 years, certainly has time to start slaughtering people. Oh, wait, Nepalese communist party had already started it in 1996 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War]
      - fabianhjr 9y ago
        Yes, Cuba. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
        Fins 9y ago
        Is that why Cubans swim with sharks to get out of there?
        gnarbarian 9y ago
        Cuba has been a hereditary dictatorship since 1959.
    - cynicalkane 9y ago
      Marx believed that socialist democracy was a dangerous enemy, because it would keep the people placated under a capitalist-government aristocracy, provided for but unfree. Marx had a different definition of freedom than is understood by liberals and democratic leftists. He used phrases like "dictatorship of the proletariat" unironically.
  - blackbagboys 9y ago
    I'm not sure whether gnarbarian is trolling or just operating outside his range of understanding, but those with an honest interest in the subject will find that Marxist-inflected schools of thought of course comprise many diverse and lively intellectual disciplines, which have influenced many politicians and leaders in decidedly non-Stalinist nations around the world, from MLK Jr. to the probable future Prime Minister of Great Britain. The other obvious rejoinder to the parent comment is that if Stalinism is "Marxism in practice", than in equal measure the wholesale genocidal slaughter of millions of Native Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Latin Americans, Iraqis etc. carried out by the United States can be said to be capitalism in practice, not to mention the century plus of horrific atrocities committed by the capitalist nations of Western Europe and East Asia (of course, many Marxists would say that this is exactly right).
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      This. I was going to comment, but this says it better than I could have this morning.
  - fabianhjr 9y ago
    No! Marx in Das Kapital and other works dedicated a great deal to make a philosophical framework to study the Capitalist Mode of Production as a phenomenon in Industrial Revolution England. Additionally, he made arguments about how the material conditions shaped human society. (Which you can in retrospective say it was obvious, but it wasn't so at the time and even nowadays history is taught in the Great Man Theory - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Great_Man_theory https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Great_Man_theory ) Marx predicted an uprising in England from Factory Workers, not in agricultural Russia and it was a big source of head scratching for Marxists at the time. The Bolshevik Revolution was at odds with Marxist theory. (Which doesn't mean he was wrong with his description of capitalism at the time) At least read the wikipedia ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marxism https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marxism ) page before attempting to disparage a theory with strawmans.
lucideer 9y ago
I can imagine some conflation happening in the 1930s, but at least today, there's a stark differentiation between Stalinism and Marxism. 18% of social scientists do not identify as Stalinists.
thedailymail 9y ago
It's important to note that in the 2006 study that Caplan cites, which reported that 18% of social scientists identified as Marxists, the other options offered were all about political affiliation rather than economic views (although there is certainly significant overlap between these categories). The prevalence of self-identified Marxists in social sciences, particuarly sociology, may reflect the important role Marx's commentaries on the social outcomes of 19th century capitalism has had in areas like history, sociology, and cultural studies, rather than a commitment to communist economic structures. There are plenty of Marxist scholars who use Marx's methods of analyzing social phenomena without subscribing to his statements about the inevitable triumph of socialism. Marx is generally recognized as a better diagnostician than a prescriptionist, and for fields involved in critical analysis of social-political-economic phenomena it is not surprising to see people who identify (politically) with his work and world view.
- simula67 9y ago
  From the linked SlateStarCodex piece : > Conservatives always complain that liberals “deny human nature” > But here I have to give conservatives their due. As far as I can tell, Marx literally, so strongly as to be unstrawmannable, believed there was no such thing as human nature and everything was completely malleable. So, it is possible Marx's economic prescription came out of his social diagnosis
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

blackbagboys 9y ago

Marxism and Stalinism are different things.

gnarbarian 9y ago
Yes I agree. Just as there is a difference between theory and practice. Marxism is to Stalinism as theory is to practice.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Marxism doesn't have to be undemocratic. Isn't the losing pattern here - dictatorship vs democracy, not Marxism vs Capitalism?
  - gnarbarian 9y ago
    Do you have any examples of lasting democracy in communist states? Maybe the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
    - goldenkey 9y ago
      Isn't North Korea aka DPRK a dictatorship? Pretty much every authoritarian regime calls themselves a Republic / Democracy. It's become a long standing joke by now.
      - Tech-Noir 9y ago
        He's being sarcastic. He could answer his question with a five second Google if he had a genuine, sincere interest in learning about the subject.
        Fins 9y ago
        You can also find a "proof" that the Earth is flat after 5 seconds of googling. Finding a non-dictatorial marxist state in real life would be slightly more difficult, as such a thing had never existed.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        If you have difficulty accepting anything that doesn't confirm your bias then, yes, I can see it might be difficult, otherwise it's really quite easy to accept that, for example, the current Prime Minister of Nepal is a Communist. Good luck with your flat Earth stuff though.
        Fins 9y ago
        Is Nepal a marxist country? Nice try with a total non-sequitur, though? Still no example of a country simultaneously democratic and marxist, though. Probably because they only excist in that mythical universe where communists are any better than nazis.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Tiananmen Square = True Communism Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) = not Communist Got it.
        Fins 9y ago
        A very nice example of reading what you want to read, isn't it? Is Nepal a communist country or not? Nice of you to acknowledge that true communism is equivalent to mass murder, though. And Nepal, having been a republic for less than 10 years, certainly has time to start slaughtering people. Oh, wait, Nepalese communist party had already started it in 1996 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War]
    - fabianhjr 9y ago
      Yes, Cuba. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
      - Fins 9y ago
        Is that why Cubans swim with sharks to get out of there?
      - gnarbarian 9y ago
        Cuba has been a hereditary dictatorship since 1959.
  - cynicalkane 9y ago
    Marx believed that socialist democracy was a dangerous enemy, because it would keep the people placated under a capitalist-government aristocracy, provided for but unfree. Marx had a different definition of freedom than is understood by liberals and democratic leftists. He used phrases like "dictatorship of the proletariat" unironically.
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  I'm not sure whether gnarbarian is trolling or just operating outside his range of understanding, but those with an honest interest in the subject will find that Marxist-inflected schools of thought of course comprise many diverse and lively intellectual disciplines, which have influenced many politicians and leaders in decidedly non-Stalinist nations around the world, from MLK Jr. to the probable future Prime Minister of Great Britain. The other obvious rejoinder to the parent comment is that if Stalinism is "Marxism in practice", than in equal measure the wholesale genocidal slaughter of millions of Native Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Latin Americans, Iraqis etc. carried out by the United States can be said to be capitalism in practice, not to mention the century plus of horrific atrocities committed by the capitalist nations of Western Europe and East Asia (of course, many Marxists would say that this is exactly right).
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    This. I was going to comment, but this says it better than I could have this morning.
- fabianhjr 9y ago
  No! Marx in Das Kapital and other works dedicated a great deal to make a philosophical framework to study the Capitalist Mode of Production as a phenomenon in Industrial Revolution England. Additionally, he made arguments about how the material conditions shaped human society. (Which you can in retrospective say it was obvious, but it wasn't so at the time and even nowadays history is taught in the Great Man Theory - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Great_Man_theory https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Great_Man_theory ) Marx predicted an uprising in England from Factory Workers, not in agricultural Russia and it was a big source of head scratching for Marxists at the time. The Bolshevik Revolution was at odds with Marxist theory. (Which doesn't mean he was wrong with his description of capitalism at the time) At least read the wikipedia ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marxism https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marxism ) page before attempting to disparage a theory with strawmans.

lucideer 9y ago

I can imagine some conflation happening in the 1930s, but at least today, there's a stark differentiation between Stalinism and Marxism. 18% of social scientists do not identify as Stalinists.

thedailymail 9y ago

It's important to note that in the 2006 study that Caplan cites, which reported that 18% of social scientists identified as Marxists, the other options offered were all about political affiliation rather than economic views (although there is certainly significant overlap between these categories). The prevalence of self-identified Marxists in social sciences, particuarly sociology, may reflect the important role Marx's commentaries on the social outcomes of 19th century capitalism has had in areas like history, sociology, and cultural studies, rather than a commitment to communist economic structures. There are plenty of Marxist scholars who use Marx's methods of analyzing social phenomena without subscribing to his statements about the inevitable triumph of socialism. Marx is generally recognized as a better diagnostician than a prescriptionist, and for fields involved in critical analysis of social-political-economic phenomena it is not surprising to see people who identify (politically) with his work and world view.

simula67 9y ago
From the linked SlateStarCodex piece : > Conservatives always complain that liberals “deny human nature” > But here I have to give conservatives their due. As far as I can tell, Marx literally, so strongly as to be unstrawmannable, believed there was no such thing as human nature and everything was completely malleable. So, it is possible Marx's economic prescription came out of his social diagnosis

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]