4 ms·

It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his boo

by 0x262d 7y ago

It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing. “What I mean,” Piketty says, explaining his differences with Marx, “is that your class position is not enough to determine your view of what’s the best system of property, education, taxation. We need ideas and ideologies and we need to take them seriously.” (Guardian in Feb). However, that is a trivially wrong mischaracterization. Marx himself was from a relatively privileged background and he, Engels, Lenin, etc have never argued for a mechanical determination of ideology. In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political-economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place - why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and liberals ignore it at their peril.

0x262d 7y ago
Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists. But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital then try either Value Price And Profit or Capital itself.
- nemo 7y ago
  Anyone interested in Marx should read Bertrand Russel's critiques of Marxism and his analysis of the Manifesto with an honest mind. The Hegelianism behind Marxism is a tool that can prove both that the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1760s was a reflection of God's will, as well as giving Marx the idea that he had a scientific approach to history that let him predict the future. Any tool of reasoning that can prove anything, in the end proves nothing, and all of Marx's history and analysis is steeped in Hegelian dialectic rendering it nonsense. His many predictions all failed, but his ideology lived on despite Scientific Socialism being a failed science. Also anyone interested in Marx should take the time to understand the Labor Theory of Value. It's a lynchpin of Marx's analysis, and it's an idea long since thoroughly discredited. Marxism is a house built on sand.
  - clairity 7y ago
    > "[the Labor Theory of Value is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited." that's quite a claim to make without any backing ("everything is nothing" is not particularly useful). i've read some of the main critiques [0], but none thoroughly discredits it. yes, the critiques show flaws, but not fatal ones. so what's the fatal flaw? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...
    - nemo 7y ago
      I think it'd worth reading that page again with an open mind. If you really read through that and thought that there are no fatal issues that's fine, I don't agree, though I doubt there's anything that anyone could say to change your mind. But I will retract and restate. The Labor Theory of Value is taken seriously by Marxists because they require it, but in terms of expert opinion it's long since been rejected. If you don't care about expert opinion and are willing to listen to ideologues then you will find compelling feeling arguments for the whole shambolic mess that is Marxist ideology. The Labor Theory of Value isn't a single flaw in Marxism, but one of dozens of serious points of incoherence. Marxism is an anti-empirical archaism of the Victorian era. Marxism is built on a dialectic that literally cannot reveal truth. Marxism makes many predictive claims that are false. Russell took apart the contradictions and irrationality of Hegelianism a long time ago and ended Hegelianism in the Anglo-American philosophical world because of it.
      - 0x262d 7y ago
        Ah, people who believe in marxism are ideologues and people who believe in the predominant ruling-class economic wisdom are simply wisely following expert advice. I feel like I've been here before. If you dropped the constantly condescending hyperbolic anti marxist stuff and made substantive criticisms besides linking to wikipedia this could be a more interesting conversation!
        nemo 7y ago
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
The greatest work of capitalist propaganda has been to almost completely replace Marx with a straw man in the public imagination. Even if you disagree with Marx, knowing his actual work and thoughts is vital to understanding the world that we live in. If you think Marx is wrong, you should at least be able to articulate it in terms of the things Marx actually wrote. The fact that the American left is about as ignorant of Marx as the average creationist is of Darwin just goes to show how deeply capitalist ideology has usurped the US political system.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  > If you think Marx is wrong, you should at least be able to articulate it in terms of the things Marx actually wrote. Piketty articulate what he thinks is wrong with Marx in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" with fairly compelling arguments.
leftyted 7y ago
> It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing. Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since Adam Smith (and maybe before). I think the rest of your post is wrong too. Marx does argue for a "mechanical determination of ideology". For Marx, man is the animal that labors, not a rational animal or a political animal. What matters is what you make with your body. If you labor with your body then you're a proletarian, and you will experience class consciousness from that perspective. If you make money from other people's labor, you're bourgeois, and you will experience bourgeois class consciousness. I don't know if Marx talks about bourgeois who consider themselves Marxists (like Engels -- Marx was not bourgeois). > In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political-economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place - why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and liberals ignore it at their peril. This is also bizarre. Piketty does have a theory about "why inequality is so rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it!
- dopu 7y ago
  > Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since Adam Smith (and maybe before). How does this refute OP's point? They're really just pointing out how absurd it is that a study on wealth inequality and class fails to even consider the Marxist perspective. Genuine scholarly negligence. > This is also bizarre. Piketty does have a theory about "why inequality is so rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it! OP isn't arguing that Piketty has no theory -- just that it's a pretty naive one. A Marxist perspective understands that "changing the laws to fix it" is not enough. The state is dependent on the bourgeoisie for its survival (see [0]), and will thus bend to their demands. So long as we have no organized and militant labor movements (and labor parties to represent them), the working class will have neither leverage over the state nor the means to enact their demands. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#The_Communist_Manifesto_and_The_German_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#T...
Ausgangssperre 7y ago
> "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality" To try to help ^^: "Social Safety- And Inner Politics Rules Behavior 'Ethicaly' ?" -So, if that was the Question Socialism wanted to answer... (-; HINT://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethik#Das_Ziel_menschlichen_Handelns

by 0x262d 7y ago

0x262d 7y ago

Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists. But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital then try either Value Price And Profit or Capital itself.

nemo 7y ago
Anyone interested in Marx should read Bertrand Russel's critiques of Marxism and his analysis of the Manifesto with an honest mind. The Hegelianism behind Marxism is a tool that can prove both that the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1760s was a reflection of God's will, as well as giving Marx the idea that he had a scientific approach to history that let him predict the future. Any tool of reasoning that can prove anything, in the end proves nothing, and all of Marx's history and analysis is steeped in Hegelian dialectic rendering it nonsense. His many predictions all failed, but his ideology lived on despite Scientific Socialism being a failed science. Also anyone interested in Marx should take the time to understand the Labor Theory of Value. It's a lynchpin of Marx's analysis, and it's an idea long since thoroughly discredited. Marxism is a house built on sand.
- clairity 7y ago
  > "[the Labor Theory of Value is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited." that's quite a claim to make without any backing ("everything is nothing" is not particularly useful). i've read some of the main critiques [0], but none thoroughly discredits it. yes, the critiques show flaws, but not fatal ones. so what's the fatal flaw? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...
  - nemo 7y ago
    I think it'd worth reading that page again with an open mind. If you really read through that and thought that there are no fatal issues that's fine, I don't agree, though I doubt there's anything that anyone could say to change your mind. But I will retract and restate. The Labor Theory of Value is taken seriously by Marxists because they require it, but in terms of expert opinion it's long since been rejected. If you don't care about expert opinion and are willing to listen to ideologues then you will find compelling feeling arguments for the whole shambolic mess that is Marxist ideology. The Labor Theory of Value isn't a single flaw in Marxism, but one of dozens of serious points of incoherence. Marxism is an anti-empirical archaism of the Victorian era. Marxism is built on a dialectic that literally cannot reveal truth. Marxism makes many predictive claims that are false. Russell took apart the contradictions and irrationality of Hegelianism a long time ago and ended Hegelianism in the Anglo-American philosophical world because of it.
    - 0x262d 7y ago
      Ah, people who believe in marxism are ideologues and people who believe in the predominant ruling-class economic wisdom are simply wisely following expert advice. I feel like I've been here before. If you dropped the constantly condescending hyperbolic anti marxist stuff and made substantive criticisms besides linking to wikipedia this could be a more interesting conversation!
      - nemo 7y ago

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

The greatest work of capitalist propaganda has been to almost completely replace Marx with a straw man in the public imagination. Even if you disagree with Marx, knowing his actual work and thoughts is vital to understanding the world that we live in. If you think Marx is wrong, you should at least be able to articulate it in terms of the things Marx actually wrote. The fact that the American left is about as ignorant of Marx as the average creationist is of Darwin just goes to show how deeply capitalist ideology has usurped the US political system.

bart_spoon 7y ago
> If you think Marx is wrong, you should at least be able to articulate it in terms of the things Marx actually wrote. Piketty articulate what he thinks is wrong with Marx in "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" with fairly compelling arguments.

leftyted 7y ago

> It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing. Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since Adam Smith (and maybe before). I think the rest of your post is wrong too. Marx does argue for a "mechanical determination of ideology". For Marx, man is the animal that labors, not a rational animal or a political animal. What matters is what you make with your body. If you labor with your body then you're a proletarian, and you will experience class consciousness from that perspective. If you make money from other people's labor, you're bourgeois, and you will experience bourgeois class consciousness. I don't know if Marx talks about bourgeois who consider themselves Marxists (like Engels -- Marx was not bourgeois). > In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political-economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place - why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and liberals ignore it at their peril. This is also bizarre. Piketty does have a theory about "why inequality is so rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it!

dopu 7y ago
> Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since Adam Smith (and maybe before). How does this refute OP's point? They're really just pointing out how absurd it is that a study on wealth inequality and class fails to even consider the Marxist perspective. Genuine scholarly negligence. > This is also bizarre. Piketty does have a theory about "why inequality is so rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it! OP isn't arguing that Piketty has no theory -- just that it's a pretty naive one. A Marxist perspective understands that "changing the laws to fix it" is not enough. The state is dependent on the bourgeoisie for its survival (see [0]), and will thus bend to their demands. So long as we have no organized and militant labor movements (and labor parties to represent them), the working class will have neither leverage over the state nor the means to enact their demands. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#The_Communist_Manifesto_and_The_German_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#T...

Ausgangssperre 7y ago

> "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality" To try to help ^^: "Social Safety- And Inner Politics Rules Behavior 'Ethicaly' ?" -So, if that was the Question Socialism wanted to answer... (-; HINT://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethik#Das_Ziel_menschlichen_Handelns