3 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 b

> 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...
- leftyted 7y ago
  > 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. I don't know how to break this to you...but you not everyone accepts the Marxian viewpoint. It's utterly bizarre to speak of "genuine scholarly negligence" when you mean "difference of opinion". > 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. Right, and Piketty says it is. You (and the original poster) have a serious problem distinguishing between disagreement and being wrong.
paganel 7y ago
> He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it! Not the OP and I must confess that I haven't read anything by Piketty just yet but imho if these are indeed his views then OP seems certainly to be right in saying Picketty only wants that "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality". That's also not want Marx really believed in, i.e. he certainly did not believe that we'll all be better off under a different, better form of capitalism. That's what guys like Lassalle [1] believed and what modern European social-democracy really believed too, starting with the 1930s (see the Popular Front in France [2]) up until the 1980s - 1990s (when all modern European social-democracy went into clinical death). Imho the only true heir of Marx that really got to put its hands on the reins of power was Lenin, and it would have been interesting to see how Trotsky would have extended the world revolution outside USSR's borders had be managed to outplay Stalin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France)
- 0x262d 7y ago
  As a Trotskyist I think Russia was doomed to bureaucratization regardless of who won the power struggle given they were isolated, only semi-capitalist, and even the existing economy and proletariat were pretty much destroyed in WW1 and the civil war (resulting in losing 80%+ of many economic sectors). But it would have been interesting and maybe even more tragic to see the historical alternative...
0x262d 7y ago
> Marx does argue for a "mechanical determination of ideology" He literally doesn't. He is a materialist in that he doesn't believe in magic or god. He is not a mechanical, deterministic one because he doesn't think there's an obvious 1-1 determination of social structure -> ideology, but instead that the two influence each other in extremely complicated ways even though ultimately everything flows from material reality. This is a pretty basic point and embarrassing to get wrong if you're an economist talking about Marx! And obviously Marx thought Engels could be a communist despite being from a bourgeois background, which is what Piketty is saying Marx has an extremely crude theory of. > Piketty does have a theory The other person responded to this but yeah I did not say he doesn't have a theory, but that his theory is flawed in that he thinks "why don't we just change the laws the bourgeois made".
- leftyted 7y ago
  You're playing the game that Marxists always play, which is to claim that no one understands Marx except you. It's a silly, silly game and totally played out. Piketty's summary of Marx is accurate as far as I'm concerned. If you want to show that it's not, please provide some evidence.

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...

leftyted 7y ago
> 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. I don't know how to break this to you...but you not everyone accepts the Marxian viewpoint. It's utterly bizarre to speak of "genuine scholarly negligence" when you mean "difference of opinion". > 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. Right, and Piketty says it is. You (and the original poster) have a serious problem distinguishing between disagreement and being wrong.

paganel 7y ago

> He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it! Not the OP and I must confess that I haven't read anything by Piketty just yet but imho if these are indeed his views then OP seems certainly to be right in saying Picketty only wants that "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality". That's also not want Marx really believed in, i.e. he certainly did not believe that we'll all be better off under a different, better form of capitalism. That's what guys like Lassalle [1] believed and what modern European social-democracy really believed too, starting with the 1930s (see the Popular Front in France [2]) up until the 1980s - 1990s (when all modern European social-democracy went into clinical death). Imho the only true heir of Marx that really got to put its hands on the reins of power was Lenin, and it would have been interesting to see how Trotsky would have extended the world revolution outside USSR's borders had be managed to outplay Stalin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_(France)

0x262d 7y ago
As a Trotskyist I think Russia was doomed to bureaucratization regardless of who won the power struggle given they were isolated, only semi-capitalist, and even the existing economy and proletariat were pretty much destroyed in WW1 and the civil war (resulting in losing 80%+ of many economic sectors). But it would have been interesting and maybe even more tragic to see the historical alternative...

0x262d 7y ago

> Marx does argue for a "mechanical determination of ideology" He literally doesn't. He is a materialist in that he doesn't believe in magic or god. He is not a mechanical, deterministic one because he doesn't think there's an obvious 1-1 determination of social structure -> ideology, but instead that the two influence each other in extremely complicated ways even though ultimately everything flows from material reality. This is a pretty basic point and embarrassing to get wrong if you're an economist talking about Marx! And obviously Marx thought Engels could be a communist despite being from a bourgeois background, which is what Piketty is saying Marx has an extremely crude theory of. > Piketty does have a theory The other person responded to this but yeah I did not say he doesn't have a theory, but that his theory is flawed in that he thinks "why don't we just change the laws the bourgeois made".

leftyted 7y ago
You're playing the game that Marxists always play, which is to claim that no one understands Marx except you. It's a silly, silly game and totally played out. Piketty's summary of Marx is accurate as far as I'm concerned. If you want to show that it's not, please provide some evidence.