4 ms·

>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 a

>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.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >Understanding the full history of software isn't required to understand the difference between good or bad software. No. We cannot talk about software in the same way we talk about other phenomena - it is obvious that various sciences have their different objects (e.g physics is the study of the physical world, biology the study of life etc.) - the point Marx was making is that economics (or rather, political economy) is a science which has an object strikingly similar to the science of history or the science of biology - it is a study in which one must engage the emergence and passing away of various forms of society, and of course to make any predictions or analyze trends. When detached from this view, the science that's left has no explanatory power. Why are wages the value that they are? Why does value appear as the objectification of labour? Why is it that the majority of large-scale productive capacity is owned by few? What can change given these parameters already determined? What can't change? Marx was a great admirer of Darwin and they corresponded on at least one occasion. Like Darwin, Marx viewed man as a necessarily historical being: "The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape. On the other hand, indications of higher forms in the lower species of animals can only be understood when the higher forms themselves are already known.", and similarly, "While focusing on political economy, Marx took the opportunity to criticize Hegel’s phenomenology. Specifically, he attacks its idealist premises that take the real starting point as the product of the thinking mind rather than as having an existence «outside the mind and independent of it»"[1] Marx is not only attacking Bastiat for his method, he's attacking it for the fact it is completely unscientific, unlike (he claims) his own[2]. But even granting your point, I'm highly skeptical one would find a software engineer who outright denies the value of history for software development, for instance to know what's been tried before and to know where things can go. Marx's argument would say that the necessary and experienced development of things the way they are today is due to the premises already set in motion. If Bastiat claims that he has discovered universal human truths, this is to some extent a historical, social and empirical claim. You can't abstract away from that and still maintain the relevance of your theory to real world phenomena. To take this further, Marx's fuller critique was that economists were obsessed with appearance and in being ignorant of economic activity resulting from people acting in their interest (again, these interests transmitted from the past[0]) they miss the "whole picture" as you say. [0] "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before,[...]" (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852) [1] http://www.consecutio.org/2018/11/every-beginning-is-difficult-holds-in-all-sciences-marx-on-the-economic-cell-form-of-the-capitalist-mode-of-production/ http://www.consecutio.org/2018/11/every-beginning-is-difficu... [2] "Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both."

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.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>Understanding the full history of software isn't required to understand the difference between good or bad software. No. We cannot talk about software in the same way we talk about other phenomena - it is obvious that various sciences have their different objects (e.g physics is the study of the physical world, biology the study of life etc.) - the point Marx was making is that economics (or rather, political economy) is a science which has an object strikingly similar to the science of history or the science of biology - it is a study in which one must engage the emergence and passing away of various forms of society, and of course to make any predictions or analyze trends. When detached from this view, the science that's left has no explanatory power. Why are wages the value that they are? Why does value appear as the objectification of labour? Why is it that the majority of large-scale productive capacity is owned by few? What can change given these parameters already determined? What can't change? Marx was a great admirer of Darwin and they corresponded on at least one occasion. Like Darwin, Marx viewed man as a necessarily historical being: "The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape. On the other hand, indications of higher forms in the lower species of animals can only be understood when the higher forms themselves are already known.", and similarly, "While focusing on political economy, Marx took the opportunity to criticize Hegel’s phenomenology. Specifically, he attacks its idealist premises that take the real starting point as the product of the thinking mind rather than as having an existence «outside the mind and independent of it»"[1] Marx is not only attacking Bastiat for his method, he's attacking it for the fact it is completely unscientific, unlike (he claims) his own[2]. But even granting your point, I'm highly skeptical one would find a software engineer who outright denies the value of history for software development, for instance to know what's been tried before and to know where things can go. Marx's argument would say that the necessary and experienced development of things the way they are today is due to the premises already set in motion. If Bastiat claims that he has discovered universal human truths, this is to some extent a historical, social and empirical claim. You can't abstract away from that and still maintain the relevance of your theory to real world phenomena. To take this further, Marx's fuller critique was that economists were obsessed with appearance and in being ignorant of economic activity resulting from people acting in their interest (again, these interests transmitted from the past[0]) they miss the "whole picture" as you say. [0] "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before,[...]" (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852) [1] http://www.consecutio.org/2018/11/every-beginning-is-difficult-holds-in-all-sciences-marx-on-the-economic-cell-form-of-the-capitalist-mode-of-production/ http://www.consecutio.org/2018/11/every-beginning-is-difficu... [2] "Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both."