5 ms·

That's not the main criticism, it's a bit of polemic following on from the rest of the analysis; I quoted it here only to mention that Marx does engage with the

That's not the main criticism, it's a bit of polemic following on from the rest of the analysis; I quoted it here only to mention that Marx does engage with these thinkers. The criticism is too long to reproduce here but you can check it out on sites that host Marx's collected works. I can't remember if opportunity cost is discussed. I'm curious what criticism of Marx's historiography you're mentioning though. While controversial, his theory of historical materialism is not discounted in contemporary history academic literature.

legitster 7y ago
So I looked into Marx's writings on Bastiat, and the example he used is this, (I am trying to summarize Marx's very convoluted writing style). Marx doesn't really care or understand the argument about opportunity cost, but he focuses on Bastiat's use of wages as an example in the argument (wages are fixed, as opposed to the volatile nature of capital). But Bastiat doesn't actually understand history! Wages come out of slavery and serfdom. Wages can only come about from the destruction of resources or the breaking up of guilds. (No citation or historical evidence provided). So actually fixed wages over the long run of all human history are not actually fixed. "No economist denies the fluctuations, the rise and fall of wages. Or are wages independent of crises? Or of machines which make wage labour redundant? Or of divisions of labour, which displace it? To assert any of this would be heterodox, and it is not asserted." This is clearly misunderstanding the point that Bastiat was making, wages were an example provided of trade-offs. Marx is steering the conversation off-topic to rant about how awful wages are. And furthermore, he is throwing out a historical argument to combat a philosophical one. But he doesn't show his work - he proposes his own view but provides no real evidence. In the chapter, the whole thing is dismissed as a product of Bastiat's "French-ness". As if to say, Of course he would see things this way, he is just a mouthpiece for the French Bourgeois. While interesting in its own right, I don't really think Marx's criticism of Bastiat is of much merit in this case. Bastiat's essay is truly a beautiful piece of writing and philosophy, and eloquently describes a universal truth. Marx is being nit-picky in order to prove his point about wages.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >Marx is steering the conversation off-topic to rant about how awful wages are. The topic isn't at all a normative discussion on wages; Marx is tracing wages as a social-historical phenomenon, one of "natural history"[0], one which occurred rather than being merely a philosophical abstract concept. Hegel, at the very least, merged these - "what is rational is real, and what is real is rational" - but Bastiat, just like Proudhon, did not. Marx's point is that it's a folly to discuss the world as it really exists when you abstract away from the social formations that determine consciousness - including, of course, the consciousness of such abstraction. Economics is not merely thought experiments and philosophy, it's supposed to be real, and when you start from an anti-historical point you will arrive at an anti-historical conclusion. See, for example, Marx's (and other's before and after him) criticisms of the "economic" theory of Robinson Crusoe. I am curious how Bastiat can claim to describe a universal truth without reference to real, historical social formations which produce these truths. By what mechanism does Bastiat have the "view from nowhere"? [0] "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." (Preface to the German edition of Capital, 1867)
  - legitster 7y ago
    Assuming I understand you correctly, we must throw out the conclusion because they do not understand the full historical context of the conclusion? I don't understand how that works in real life. Understanding the full history of software isn't required to understand the difference between good or bad software. I understand that Marx has a grand unified theory of history and economics. But it is folly to point to anyone else that does not have a grand unified theory and blame them for not fitting into his. I wish he would spend more time defending his view and showing the merit of it, rather than attacking people for essentially not seeing the whole picture like he does.

legitster 7y ago

So I looked into Marx's writings on Bastiat, and the example he used is this, (I am trying to summarize Marx's very convoluted writing style). Marx doesn't really care or understand the argument about opportunity cost, but he focuses on Bastiat's use of wages as an example in the argument (wages are fixed, as opposed to the volatile nature of capital). But Bastiat doesn't actually understand history! Wages come out of slavery and serfdom. Wages can only come about from the destruction of resources or the breaking up of guilds. (No citation or historical evidence provided). So actually fixed wages over the long run of all human history are not actually fixed. "No economist denies the fluctuations, the rise and fall of wages. Or are wages independent of crises? Or of machines which make wage labour redundant? Or of divisions of labour, which displace it? To assert any of this would be heterodox, and it is not asserted." This is clearly misunderstanding the point that Bastiat was making, wages were an example provided of trade-offs. Marx is steering the conversation off-topic to rant about how awful wages are. And furthermore, he is throwing out a historical argument to combat a philosophical one. But he doesn't show his work - he proposes his own view but provides no real evidence. In the chapter, the whole thing is dismissed as a product of Bastiat's "French-ness". As if to say, Of course he would see things this way, he is just a mouthpiece for the French Bourgeois. While interesting in its own right, I don't really think Marx's criticism of Bastiat is of much merit in this case. Bastiat's essay is truly a beautiful piece of writing and philosophy, and eloquently describes a universal truth. Marx is being nit-picky in order to prove his point about wages.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>Marx is steering the conversation off-topic to rant about how awful wages are. The topic isn't at all a normative discussion on wages; Marx is tracing wages as a social-historical phenomenon, one of "natural history"[0], one which occurred rather than being merely a philosophical abstract concept. Hegel, at the very least, merged these - "what is rational is real, and what is real is rational" - but Bastiat, just like Proudhon, did not. Marx's point is that it's a folly to discuss the world as it really exists when you abstract away from the social formations that determine consciousness - including, of course, the consciousness of such abstraction. Economics is not merely thought experiments and philosophy, it's supposed to be real, and when you start from an anti-historical point you will arrive at an anti-historical conclusion. See, for example, Marx's (and other's before and after him) criticisms of the "economic" theory of Robinson Crusoe. I am curious how Bastiat can claim to describe a universal truth without reference to real, historical social formations which produce these truths. By what mechanism does Bastiat have the "view from nowhere"? [0] "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." (Preface to the German edition of Capital, 1867)
- legitster 7y ago
  Assuming I understand you correctly, we must throw out the conclusion because they do not understand the full historical context of the conclusion? I don't understand how that works in real life. Understanding the full history of software isn't required to understand the difference between good or bad software. I understand that Marx has a grand unified theory of history and economics. But it is folly to point to anyone else that does not have a grand unified theory and blame them for not fitting into his. I wish he would spend more time defending his view and showing the merit of it, rather than attacking people for essentially not seeing the whole picture like he does.