3 ms·

I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it[0]. You reach a sim

I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it[0]. You reach a similarly rash conclusion: that "Marxism is intellecutally worthless" - something, I'm sure, many philosophers, heterodox economists, political economists, and sociologists would pick you up on. Even Samuelson had more to say about Marx than to call him intellectually worthless - a "minor post-Ricardian" (and despite that fact engaging in a debate with Marxian economists in very public publications). I supposed that if a vague criticism of Hardt and Negri is your justification for dismissing the school of thought they draw from (in, it should be mentioned, very controversial ways), you must not be able to say much about what most experts think of when they hear "Marxism": Capital, V.I. Lenin, Dobb/Meek/Sweezy, Postone, etc. Put it this way: every philosopher who has seriously engaged with Marx critically has not had the hubris to call Marxism "intellectually worthless" - flawed, logically inconsistent, immoral, convoluted, unnecessary, whatever, sure - but not worthless as a result of "sheer obscurity and bullshitting". The only part of Marx that has been called needlessly obscure (aside from misguided remarks by Pareto) is the Wertform - and Marxists themselves criticize that heavily. Some Marxists (Rational Choice Marxists) would even agree with you, and still hold Marx to be highly relevant and fruitful. Empire seems cherry-picked at best, and a dishonest representative of late 20th c. and 21st c. Marxian literature at worst. If it's all you've read from Marxists, then my apologies - but criticize Hardt and Negri, not the discipline as a whole, which has worked for the past century to create a great many introductory materials, lecture series, video series, companion guides and more. [0] https://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#communism https://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#communism

nl 7y ago
>I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it You are referring to gwern's "dismissal of Marx's thought" in your reply to everybodyknows? I'm confused.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I was referring to the fact of dismissing a deep, highly-varied, internally contentious and diverse discipline of philosophy on the basis of reading one text by one author, that author's work not being representative of the body of work, and failing to understand it. Gwern's example simply came to mind because it seemed nearly as egregious as everybodyknows'.
  - tallyhotallyho 7y ago
    To be completely honest, I am bored of the deity of Marx and his disciples. It's something for mediocre middle class people to amuse themselves with. An insipid embarrassment. What formulation of polysyllabic words shall we agree to disagree on this decade? The meekness of academics creeping around humanities departments. Those spineless creatures, their desperate choice of victim; alone, naive, vain, unconfident. A child detached from their family and friends for the first time. Boring bankrupt ponzi pretentiousness.
gwern 7y ago
And let us consider how 'rash' a conclusion you are making when you assume that that is literally the only thing I ever read, apparently, as opposed to merely one of the most egregious, and ignore that I don't feel the need to reiterate the many excellent objections, theoretical and practical, which refute Marxism and show that it provided little to the world except error, in what is a page about myself and not Karl Marx.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >when you assume that that is literally the only thing I ever read, apparently, as opposed to merely one of the most egregious You stated your experience, and the conclusion that experience led you to. The conclusion that Marxism is "really that intellectually worthless" on the basis of what you wrote on your site is unwarranted - and yet, considering how most Marxist literature isn't nearly as "bullshitty and obscure" as you paint Empire to be, as the opinions from experts and scholars demonstrate[0], it's a fairly reasonable conclusion for me to draw. All of this is still assuming that Empire really is as "bullshitty and obscure" as you say it is. I'm yet to see anyone else make that claim - despite your claim that "it's not just [you]". >I don't feel the need to reiterate the many excellent objections, theoretical and practical, which refute Marxism I suppose that is how the Internet works. You don't need to present or defend a specific claim; instead, you can pick out one example, infer that it is representative of the whole, and claim you're right - but right in what way isn't your job to show. If Empire is "the most egregious", why is the most egregious example being used to attack the whole and being taken as representative? I'm sure you know about the concept of steelmanning - to take the most charitable interpretation of your opponent's claims. On your page, you write "[...] concluding the problem was not me [...]", how could you possibly come to that conclusion when scholars in related fields and experts on the topic have no issue navigating the work[1]? This isn't an issue of Marx[ism] being correct or not. I disagree with a few of Marx's conclusions. This is an issue of Marxist literature being "bulshitty and obscure". That is the claim you have failed to back up. By pointing to "excellent objections", you only strengthen my point that even the harshest critics can navigate Marxism. When two Nobel prize winning economists consider 20th c. Marxism sufficiently readable and strong to argue against in a series of publications, maybe the problem is you. It appears you even failed to give proper appreciation to the place of Analytical or Mathematical Marxism - the stuff published in economics journals through the latter half of the 20th c. and to this day. You'll find that contrary to your opinion, they're plenty readable even by people who aren't experts of Marx[3]. [0] Pick up any comprehensive book on the history of economics and there'll be a chapter on Marx. It may not be a generous chapter, but the authors clearly were able to navigate through the work in order to write their chapter. Pick up any book on mainstream theories of philosophy, history or sociology and you'll find the same. In a PolEcon book you'll find more than one chapter. Are you sure the problem isn't just you? [1] Not only that, but there are hundreds of short books, lecture series and pamphlets that explain the topic pretty well[2]. Marx himself wrote a short lecture series. Your post makes it out to be as if the discipline keeps things well hidden in an obscurantist conspiracy. [2] If you don't care for a sympathetic overview of Marxism, Kolakowski, one of Marxism's harshest critics, wrote The Main Currents of Marxism. [3] Example: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468758 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468758 and https://econpapers.repec.org/article/fisjournl/19s0102.htm https://econpapers.repec.org/article/fisjournl/19s0102.htm and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309816819852771 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030981681985277... and http://digamo.free.fr/jefferies15.pdf http://digamo.free.fr/jefferies15.pdf

nl 7y ago

>I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it You are referring to gwern's "dismissal of Marx's thought" in your reply to everybodyknows? I'm confused.

claudiawerner 7y ago
I was referring to the fact of dismissing a deep, highly-varied, internally contentious and diverse discipline of philosophy on the basis of reading one text by one author, that author's work not being representative of the body of work, and failing to understand it. Gwern's example simply came to mind because it seemed nearly as egregious as everybodyknows'.
- tallyhotallyho 7y ago
  To be completely honest, I am bored of the deity of Marx and his disciples. It's something for mediocre middle class people to amuse themselves with. An insipid embarrassment. What formulation of polysyllabic words shall we agree to disagree on this decade? The meekness of academics creeping around humanities departments. Those spineless creatures, their desperate choice of victim; alone, naive, vain, unconfident. A child detached from their family and friends for the first time. Boring bankrupt ponzi pretentiousness.

gwern 7y ago

And let us consider how 'rash' a conclusion you are making when you assume that that is literally the only thing I ever read, apparently, as opposed to merely one of the most egregious, and ignore that I don't feel the need to reiterate the many excellent objections, theoretical and practical, which refute Marxism and show that it provided little to the world except error, in what is a page about myself and not Karl Marx.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>when you assume that that is literally the only thing I ever read, apparently, as opposed to merely one of the most egregious You stated your experience, and the conclusion that experience led you to. The conclusion that Marxism is "really that intellectually worthless" on the basis of what you wrote on your site is unwarranted - and yet, considering how most Marxist literature isn't nearly as "bullshitty and obscure" as you paint Empire to be, as the opinions from experts and scholars demonstrate[0], it's a fairly reasonable conclusion for me to draw. All of this is still assuming that Empire really is as "bullshitty and obscure" as you say it is. I'm yet to see anyone else make that claim - despite your claim that "it's not just [you]". >I don't feel the need to reiterate the many excellent objections, theoretical and practical, which refute Marxism I suppose that is how the Internet works. You don't need to present or defend a specific claim; instead, you can pick out one example, infer that it is representative of the whole, and claim you're right - but right in what way isn't your job to show. If Empire is "the most egregious", why is the most egregious example being used to attack the whole and being taken as representative? I'm sure you know about the concept of steelmanning - to take the most charitable interpretation of your opponent's claims. On your page, you write "[...] concluding the problem was not me [...]", how could you possibly come to that conclusion when scholars in related fields and experts on the topic have no issue navigating the work[1]? This isn't an issue of Marx[ism] being correct or not. I disagree with a few of Marx's conclusions. This is an issue of Marxist literature being "bulshitty and obscure". That is the claim you have failed to back up. By pointing to "excellent objections", you only strengthen my point that even the harshest critics can navigate Marxism. When two Nobel prize winning economists consider 20th c. Marxism sufficiently readable and strong to argue against in a series of publications, maybe the problem is you. It appears you even failed to give proper appreciation to the place of Analytical or Mathematical Marxism - the stuff published in economics journals through the latter half of the 20th c. and to this day. You'll find that contrary to your opinion, they're plenty readable even by people who aren't experts of Marx[3]. [0] Pick up any comprehensive book on the history of economics and there'll be a chapter on Marx. It may not be a generous chapter, but the authors clearly were able to navigate through the work in order to write their chapter. Pick up any book on mainstream theories of philosophy, history or sociology and you'll find the same. In a PolEcon book you'll find more than one chapter. Are you sure the problem isn't just you? [1] Not only that, but there are hundreds of short books, lecture series and pamphlets that explain the topic pretty well[2]. Marx himself wrote a short lecture series. Your post makes it out to be as if the discipline keeps things well hidden in an obscurantist conspiracy. [2] If you don't care for a sympathetic overview of Marxism, Kolakowski, one of Marxism's harshest critics, wrote The Main Currents of Marxism. [3] Example: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468758 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468758 and https://econpapers.repec.org/article/fisjournl/19s0102.htm https://econpapers.repec.org/article/fisjournl/19s0102.htm and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309816819852771 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030981681985277... and http://digamo.free.fr/jefferies15.pdf http://digamo.free.fr/jefferies15.pdf