Marxism is quite similar to psychoanalysis - the fundamental errors on which it is based lend it an infinitely flexible explanatory power, a sort of metaphysical divide by zero error. Marxism can explain anything, indeed it's followers frequently consider that to be its greatest strength. The problem is that in explaining everything, it explains nothing: since any outcome can be shown to be consistent with a Marxist analysis, it is unfalsifiable, therefore untestable, therefore from a scientific perspective utterly useless. However, from a social perspective, as a way of entraining minds via a sort of hypnotism, it is extraordinarily useful.
It's no accident that Freud and Marx were largely promoted by the same sorts of intellectuals throughout the twentieth century. Even long after economists had demonstrated Marx to be comprehensively wrong and psychologists had shown Freud to be a charlatan, their ideas retained a sacred currency within the circles of leftist intellectuals, because they are perfectly crafted tools for such types to attain power over the minds of men.
Great essay. I have frequently struggled to understand what people like in Marx. I finally accepted that it works like a young adult novel: lots of poorly thought out bits that are glossed over because the reader identifies with some feelings expressed.
I also particularly liked this paragraph:
"Faced with the take/make/trade choice to gain such resources, we often trade. Indeed, our propensity to trade (especially our propensity to share what we have acquired within a group: such sharing often being a form of trading across time) sets us apart from all our ape cousins."
Sharing as implied trading across time is a really strong insight. I recall Terry Pratchett writing of "storing food in other people" when one has more than one can consume. It really encompasses both why sharing is valuable, and why freeloading makes it break down so quickly.
Marx fits firmly in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which basically boils down to a leader appearing to denounce the current world/society for its sins against God (read: Justice), and for its cruelty to the poor and dispossessed.
In Hebrew the word is "Nevi'im ("Prophets", literally "spokespersons"), and a navi is one who expresses words of reproach to the people.
Marx could easily be read/seen as another Jeremiah, Amos or Isaiah:
"Your rulers are rogues and cronies of thieves,” says Isaiah. “Every one avid for presents and greedy for gifts; They do not judge the case of the orphan, and the widow’s cause never reaches them” (Isaiah 1:23). Isaiah’s mission, the prophet’s mission, is to open unseeing eyes, expose hidden injustice, uncover the inconvenient truths society ignores.
“I have noted how many are your crimes, and how countless your sins,” says the prophet Amos. “You enemies of the righteous, you takers of bribes, you who subvert in the gate the cause of the needy!” (Amos 5:12)
And if we also include Jesus, there is so much of the Gospels that echoes in Marxism, especially "the first shall be last" and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
The Messianic utopianism of Isaiah also posits a utopian Last Days (akin to Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat), that being the world of tikkun, the re-establishment of the harmonious condition of the world.
Just ignore all of Marx's unreadable blather about economics, and his twisted messianic misanthropism (for a savior of humanity he really seemed full of hatred): he is another in a long line of Jewish prophets (I think at least one of his grandfathers were rebbes) who denounced all that exists in favor of a perfect unseen world, that would only arrive once we obeyed all his many strict commands.
That he claimed to be an atheist only makes the shoe fit even better, he is the first prophet of the post-God modern world, yet still fitting easily into the rich prophetic tradition of his people.
I enjoyed reading this. I must admit, every time I've tried to read Marx's Capital, I've struggled to concentrate over the din of the phrase "what a load of cobblers" reverberating through my head over and over.
"Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally." He seemed to say that like it was a bad thing. What did he want people to do? Subsistence farm only, wear the skins your missus makes, avoid any kind of specialisation in craft or trade? He was a soft-handed fantasist, imo.
The Anglo-settler societies all imported labour, so the local labour had a scarcity premium: they were high wage countries. All of them blocked tropical (“non-white”) labour from coming and competing.
They also imported (mainly British) capital, so the local capital also had a scarcity premium. Meanwhile, they exported food, wool, cotton, gold, coal, iron, etc.; the products of land.
They all imposed relatively high tariffs. This was a burden on their exporters, who had higher domestic costs as a result but faced global prices. But the tariffs protected local manufacturing, raising the income of both owners (capital) and workers. So, labour and capital combined to force tariffs on the owners of farmland and mine-owners (land).
In Australia, there was trade protection, wage arbitration, white australia (restrictions on migration), state paternalism and imperial benevolence. The Deakinite or Australian settlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_settlement
Marxism is quite similar to psychoanalysis - the fundamental errors on which it is based lend it an infinitely flexible explanatory power, a sort of metaphysical divide by zero error. Marxism can explain anything, indeed it's followers frequently consider that to be its greatest strength. The problem is that in explaining everything, it explains nothing: since any outcome can be shown to be consistent with a Marxist analysis, it is unfalsifiable, therefore untestable, therefore from a scientific perspective utterly useless. However, from a social perspective, as a way of entraining minds via a sort of hypnotism, it is extraordinarily useful.
It's no accident that Freud and Marx were largely promoted by the same sorts of intellectuals throughout the twentieth century. Even long after economists had demonstrated Marx to be comprehensively wrong and psychologists had shown Freud to be a charlatan, their ideas retained a sacred currency within the circles of leftist intellectuals, because they are perfectly crafted tools for such types to attain power over the minds of men.
Great essay. I have frequently struggled to understand what people like in Marx. I finally accepted that it works like a young adult novel: lots of poorly thought out bits that are glossed over because the reader identifies with some feelings expressed.
I also particularly liked this paragraph:
"Faced with the take/make/trade choice to gain such resources, we often trade. Indeed, our propensity to trade (especially our propensity to share what we have acquired within a group: such sharing often being a form of trading across time) sets us apart from all our ape cousins."
Sharing as implied trading across time is a really strong insight. I recall Terry Pratchett writing of "storing food in other people" when one has more than one can consume. It really encompasses both why sharing is valuable, and why freeloading makes it break down so quickly.
Great analogy, likening the appeal of Marxism to that of young adult novels!
For someone who is so widely-regarded as an intellectual, Marx's writing is rather poor in quality.
Marx fits firmly in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which basically boils down to a leader appearing to denounce the current world/society for its sins against God (read: Justice), and for its cruelty to the poor and dispossessed.
In Hebrew the word is "Nevi'im ("Prophets", literally "spokespersons"), and a navi is one who expresses words of reproach to the people.
Marx could easily be read/seen as another Jeremiah, Amos or Isaiah:
"Your rulers are rogues and cronies of thieves,” says Isaiah. “Every one avid for presents and greedy for gifts; They do not judge the case of the orphan, and the widow’s cause never reaches them” (Isaiah 1:23). Isaiah’s mission, the prophet’s mission, is to open unseeing eyes, expose hidden injustice, uncover the inconvenient truths society ignores.
“I have noted how many are your crimes, and how countless your sins,” says the prophet Amos. “You enemies of the righteous, you takers of bribes, you who subvert in the gate the cause of the needy!” (Amos 5:12)
And if we also include Jesus, there is so much of the Gospels that echoes in Marxism, especially "the first shall be last" and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
The Messianic utopianism of Isaiah also posits a utopian Last Days (akin to Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat), that being the world of tikkun, the re-establishment of the harmonious condition of the world.
Just ignore all of Marx's unreadable blather about economics, and his twisted messianic misanthropism (for a savior of humanity he really seemed full of hatred): he is another in a long line of Jewish prophets (I think at least one of his grandfathers were rebbes) who denounced all that exists in favor of a perfect unseen world, that would only arrive once we obeyed all his many strict commands.
That he claimed to be an atheist only makes the shoe fit even better, he is the first prophet of the post-God modern world, yet still fitting easily into the rich prophetic tradition of his people.
I enjoyed reading this. I must admit, every time I've tried to read Marx's Capital, I've struggled to concentrate over the din of the phrase "what a load of cobblers" reverberating through my head over and over.
"Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally." He seemed to say that like it was a bad thing. What did he want people to do? Subsistence farm only, wear the skins your missus makes, avoid any kind of specialisation in craft or trade? He was a soft-handed fantasist, imo.
The Anglo-settler societies all imported labour, so the local labour had a scarcity premium: they were high wage countries. All of them blocked tropical (“non-white”) labour from coming and competing.
They also imported (mainly British) capital, so the local capital also had a scarcity premium. Meanwhile, they exported food, wool, cotton, gold, coal, iron, etc.; the products of land.
They all imposed relatively high tariffs. This was a burden on their exporters, who had higher domestic costs as a result but faced global prices. But the tariffs protected local manufacturing, raising the income of both owners (capital) and workers. So, labour and capital combined to force tariffs on the owners of farmland and mine-owners (land).
In Australia, there was trade protection, wage arbitration, white australia (restrictions on migration), state paternalism and imperial benevolence. The Deakinite or Australian settlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_settlement
Hope this clarifies.