3 ms·

This is a distillation of Roger Kimball’s (and many others’) accusations that Marx was an intellectual’s intellectual. He mentions Raymond Aron publishing the s

This is a distillation of Roger Kimball’s (and many others’) accusations that Marx was an intellectual’s intellectual. He mentions Raymond Aron publishing the same idea in a 1955 book. I’m not sure anyone would argue with the drier thesis. It’s what isn’t mentioned which guides the dishonesty. Marx’s commitments and adorations were always to the working class, and his proper legacy was won exclusively through the working class. He was a strictly anti-authoritarian democracy absolutist, for the record. The article is a strategic smear for a target who knows literal nothing about the history of Karl Marx, because all the facts will check out true. But is this only a cheap framing of Marx’s work as hype? I get a sense there is an additional mythical context I’m missing out on. Can anybody explain why this is compelling to it’s audience?

jack_pp 8y ago
This article is very little about marx himself.
- extralego 8y ago
  Exactly my point! It’s almost entirely peripheral trivia mounted around a cheap smear. No elaboration, no explanation, no evidence beyond references to past claims.
  - jack_pp 8y ago
    Is every article supposed to contain the entire history of a topic? This particular one did not feel like a smear to me as much as a presentation of an opposing perspective, one given in a calm respectful tone which contradicts your obvious tone in trying to smear the article itself.
    - topspin 8y ago
      > Is every article supposed to contain the entire history of a topic? Every article is supposed to perform however much mental gymnastics are necessary to absolve Marx et al of any fault or flaw.
    - extralego 8y ago
      OK. This was only my interpretation. I don’t have any goals or anything against the author. I actually like some of his art writing. I just think the article delivers a bold misrepresentation of it’s central figure; also one of the most studied persons of the 19th century. It seems silly that’s all.
johnalamos 8y ago
You're the kind of intellectual this article is about
- extralego 8y ago
  Doubt it. I went to community college.
darkmighty 8y ago
I can't comment much about Marx as I don't know the details of his claims or how they relate to implemented politics. What I enjoyed very much was the claimed position of Raymond Aron's w.r.t. intellectualism: "Aron’s generosity of spirit was a coefficient of his recognition that reality was complex, knowledge limited, and action essential. The leitmotif of Aron’s career was responsibility. He understood that political wisdom rests in the ability to choose the better course of action even when the best course is unavailable--which is always. The subject of politics, Aristotle noted, is “the good life for man.” What constitutes the good life? Aron cannily reminds us that the more extravagant answers to this question are often the most malevolent. They promise everything. They tend to deliver misery and impoverishment." I think this is a great thing to be reminded of, constantly -- in particular for intellectuals and scientists. It is almost too easy to be fooled in thinking the scientific principles or intellectual ideals will apply nicely to humans, the complexities of the real world; that we can be certain about what is truly good or the true nature of reality. It's not that we shouldn't investigate political systems, moral systems, economic theory, metaphysics, etc; it's that we should be specially skeptic about grandiose claims that go against common sense or personal freedom. And quoting the recent Aaronson AMA: "(...) partly it's because I take it as almost an axiom of rationality that, if a metaphysical belief leads you to do "obviously insane" things with your life, then it's probably time to look for a better metaphysical belief. :-) (I wouldn't say the same about scientific or mathematical beliefs.)"
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Is a cult of “personal freedom” that creates its own extinction event and alters the climate of its own planet to make it less habitable more or less insane than Marxism?
  - latte 8y ago
    As if the non-capitalist world had cared more about the environment. Kyshtym, Chernobyl and Aral Sea disasters have no relation to the "cult" of personal freedom in any way. The only reason the Western / capitalist world had a greater impact on the planet is because they were able to build industrial power faster than the Marxist countries, not because they were less concerned about the environment (looking at the Soviet Union and China, I would rather say the opposite is true).
imbokodo 8y ago
> This is a distillation of Roger Kimball’s (and many others’) accusations that Marx was an intellectual’s intellectual I don't even see why it matters. I myself am not an expert on gravitational waves. If Neil Degrasse Tyson or Michio Kazu read a scientific paper by Rainer Weiss on gravitational waves and then break it down for me in layman's language, I don't see why that takes any shine off Weiss's Nobel prize. As it is, Marx wrote some work for the public like the Communist Manifesto (although 170 years later where the names Metternich and Guizot are less familiar than Merkel and Macron, it may seem more obscure), as well as more dense works like Capital. It's an silly argument - if Marx went over things lightly, his ideas would be more easily attacked and he would be called lightweight. If he writes densely and goes over each argument thoroughly to make it airtight he can be accused of being difficult for the layman to understand with light reading. I guess Marx preferred making his arguments more airtight than worrying about accusations of being a chore to read.

jack_pp 8y ago

This article is very little about marx himself.

extralego 8y ago
Exactly my point! It’s almost entirely peripheral trivia mounted around a cheap smear. No elaboration, no explanation, no evidence beyond references to past claims.
- jack_pp 8y ago
  Is every article supposed to contain the entire history of a topic? This particular one did not feel like a smear to me as much as a presentation of an opposing perspective, one given in a calm respectful tone which contradicts your obvious tone in trying to smear the article itself.
  - topspin 8y ago
    > Is every article supposed to contain the entire history of a topic? Every article is supposed to perform however much mental gymnastics are necessary to absolve Marx et al of any fault or flaw.
  - extralego 8y ago
    OK. This was only my interpretation. I don’t have any goals or anything against the author. I actually like some of his art writing. I just think the article delivers a bold misrepresentation of it’s central figure; also one of the most studied persons of the 19th century. It seems silly that’s all.

johnalamos 8y ago

You're the kind of intellectual this article is about

extralego 8y ago
Doubt it. I went to community college.

darkmighty 8y ago

I can't comment much about Marx as I don't know the details of his claims or how they relate to implemented politics. What I enjoyed very much was the claimed position of Raymond Aron's w.r.t. intellectualism: "Aron’s generosity of spirit was a coefficient of his recognition that reality was complex, knowledge limited, and action essential. The leitmotif of Aron’s career was responsibility. He understood that political wisdom rests in the ability to choose the better course of action even when the best course is unavailable--which is always. The subject of politics, Aristotle noted, is “the good life for man.” What constitutes the good life? Aron cannily reminds us that the more extravagant answers to this question are often the most malevolent. They promise everything. They tend to deliver misery and impoverishment." I think this is a great thing to be reminded of, constantly -- in particular for intellectuals and scientists. It is almost too easy to be fooled in thinking the scientific principles or intellectual ideals will apply nicely to humans, the complexities of the real world; that we can be certain about what is truly good or the true nature of reality. It's not that we shouldn't investigate political systems, moral systems, economic theory, metaphysics, etc; it's that we should be specially skeptic about grandiose claims that go against common sense or personal freedom. And quoting the recent Aaronson AMA: "(...) partly it's because I take it as almost an axiom of rationality that, if a metaphysical belief leads you to do "obviously insane" things with your life, then it's probably time to look for a better metaphysical belief. :-) (I wouldn't say the same about scientific or mathematical beliefs.)"

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Is a cult of “personal freedom” that creates its own extinction event and alters the climate of its own planet to make it less habitable more or less insane than Marxism?
- latte 8y ago
  As if the non-capitalist world had cared more about the environment. Kyshtym, Chernobyl and Aral Sea disasters have no relation to the "cult" of personal freedom in any way. The only reason the Western / capitalist world had a greater impact on the planet is because they were able to build industrial power faster than the Marxist countries, not because they were less concerned about the environment (looking at the Soviet Union and China, I would rather say the opposite is true).

imbokodo 8y ago

> This is a distillation of Roger Kimball’s (and many others’) accusations that Marx was an intellectual’s intellectual I don't even see why it matters. I myself am not an expert on gravitational waves. If Neil Degrasse Tyson or Michio Kazu read a scientific paper by Rainer Weiss on gravitational waves and then break it down for me in layman's language, I don't see why that takes any shine off Weiss's Nobel prize. As it is, Marx wrote some work for the public like the Communist Manifesto (although 170 years later where the names Metternich and Guizot are less familiar than Merkel and Macron, it may seem more obscure), as well as more dense works like Capital. It's an silly argument - if Marx went over things lightly, his ideas would be more easily attacked and he would be called lightweight. If he writes densely and goes over each argument thoroughly to make it airtight he can be accused of being difficult for the layman to understand with light reading. I guess Marx preferred making his arguments more airtight than worrying about accusations of being a chore to read.