3 ms·

> and comes from a marxian historical analysis I doubt that. Marxism is essentially a modified labor theory of value, in the line of Smith and Ricardo. It says

> and comes from a marxian historical analysis I doubt that. Marxism is essentially a modified labor theory of value, in the line of Smith and Ricardo. It says the source of value lies in the productive output of the working classes. It would make no sense, from a labor theory of value, to pinpoint the source of innovation at the capital owners, so I would be very surprised if you were able to provide a source for that claim.

coldtea 6y ago
Where did you get that "doubt" from? Aside from "a labor theory of value" Marxism (as in Marx himself) wrote about ideology, alienation, the origin of family, revolutionary tactics, current (his era) politics, the historical development of economy, religion, modes of production, and several other things besides. (This is not whether Marx was right on wrong on these topics. Just pointing that he touched extensively all of them. Marxist thought is not constrained to a "labor theory of value"). Here's the most basic Marxist expression of the rich (the bourgeoisie) driving technological innovation, from the Communist Manifesto: The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. (...) It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. (...) The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. (...) The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. (...) The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
- bildung 6y ago
  Yeah, Marx wasn't shy of stating opinions at all, that's for sure. What is driving the innovation though, in Marx' theory, are the market forces. The bourgeoisie as the class of capital owners has to innovate to stay competitive with one another or perish at the market. That does not mean that they as individual persons have to be actual inventors, or that they really have much of a choice. Marx went to great lengths in the Capital to emphasize that it's not about the individual but the economic forces, e.g. he wrote clearly that the individual capitalist isn't morally bad for exploiting the workers, as he isn't free to chose: If the capitalist were to pay them (significantly) better, he/she would lose out to a competitor who didn't. The whole point of his writings is that the economic reality forms the behaviour of the individual. Marx tried to explain the changes in the world by the underlying changes in the economy. The idea of placing agency at the individual would be dismissed as idealist/bourgeois thinking.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  The Bourgeoisie in pre industrial capitalism was still a "middle class" of sorts, having less power than the landed aristocracy. It's only with industrial capitalism that the capital owners are the most powerful, the aristocracy marries in to them, and the homogoenized unskilled workforce distinguished from the older small-scale trades and crafts diverges as the working class.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Marx here speaks about industrial bourgeoisie. He has also praised the "promethean" nature of the capitalist.
- mcguire 6y ago
  The point here being that that ^ does not really support, "Yes, this stereotype of innovation or invention being driven by rich dilletantes is absolutely false, and comes from a marxian historical analysis where the adherents didn't want to acknowledge that drivers of innovation for the most part were from the same background as, uhh, Marx himself, rather than from the nobility."

coldtea 6y ago

Where did you get that "doubt" from? Aside from "a labor theory of value" Marxism (as in Marx himself) wrote about ideology, alienation, the origin of family, revolutionary tactics, current (his era) politics, the historical development of economy, religion, modes of production, and several other things besides. (This is not whether Marx was right on wrong on these topics. Just pointing that he touched extensively all of them. Marxist thought is not constrained to a "labor theory of value"). Here's the most basic Marxist expression of the rich (the bourgeoisie) driving technological innovation, from the Communist Manifesto: The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. (...) It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. (...) The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. (...) The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. (...) The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

bildung 6y ago
Yeah, Marx wasn't shy of stating opinions at all, that's for sure. What is driving the innovation though, in Marx' theory, are the market forces. The bourgeoisie as the class of capital owners has to innovate to stay competitive with one another or perish at the market. That does not mean that they as individual persons have to be actual inventors, or that they really have much of a choice. Marx went to great lengths in the Capital to emphasize that it's not about the individual but the economic forces, e.g. he wrote clearly that the individual capitalist isn't morally bad for exploiting the workers, as he isn't free to chose: If the capitalist were to pay them (significantly) better, he/she would lose out to a competitor who didn't. The whole point of his writings is that the economic reality forms the behaviour of the individual. Marx tried to explain the changes in the world by the underlying changes in the economy. The idea of placing agency at the individual would be dismissed as idealist/bourgeois thinking.
Ericson2314 6y ago
The Bourgeoisie in pre industrial capitalism was still a "middle class" of sorts, having less power than the landed aristocracy. It's only with industrial capitalism that the capital owners are the most powerful, the aristocracy marries in to them, and the homogoenized unskilled workforce distinguished from the older small-scale trades and crafts diverges as the working class.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Marx here speaks about industrial bourgeoisie. He has also praised the "promethean" nature of the capitalist.
mcguire 6y ago
The point here being that that ^ does not really support, "Yes, this stereotype of innovation or invention being driven by rich dilletantes is absolutely false, and comes from a marxian historical analysis where the adherents didn't want to acknowledge that drivers of innovation for the most part were from the same background as, uhh, Marx himself, rather than from the nobility."