ISR: In defense of Marxism

[marmar]

from the International Socialist Review:


by Phil Gasper

In defense of Marxism
Marx's ideas are back--and beginning to be attacked in the mainstream media


LAST FALL, when the depth of the economic crisis in the U.S. and around the world started to become abundantly clear, articles began to appear in mainstream media sources around the world talking about the return of Karl Marx. Time magazine even put the author of Das Kapital on the cover of its European (though notably not its U.S.) edition in February, with the headline “What would Marx think?” While rejecting what it called “the prophetic, prescriptive parts of Marx’s writings,” the inside article drew attention to Marx’s “trenchant diagnosis of the underlying problems of a market economy that is surprisingly relevant even today,” and which “is almost uncannily prescient about globalization’s costs and benefits.”

It was to be expected, however, that Marx would not continue to get the kid glove treatment forever. In May, the Financial Times published a lengthy review of three books—about, respectively, the history of self-identified communist regimes, Marx’s comrade and collaborator Frederick Engels, and Marx himself—by its Brussels bureau chief, Tony Barber, which takes a much more dismissive attitude to Marx’s ideas. If there are arguments against Marxism that deserve to be taken seriously, then one might expect to find them in such a prestigious publication. But in the end, Barber’s case is not very impressive.

Barber acknowledges early on that “capitalism is in its worst shape since the Great Depression of the 1930s” and concedes that “some of the criticisms that Marx and Engels leveled at mid-19th century capitalist economic systems do not appear out of place 150 years later.” But he also argues that it would be rash to conclude that “Marx and Engels about to be proved right after all.”

Barber’s argument against Marxism echoes two lines of criticism that he notes were used during the Cold War to “hit back at the Marxist foe.” The first response was that “Whatever the theory, the practice stank. The second riposte was to point out that the theory stank too. As a prophecy of mankind’s future, supposedly based on scientifically discovered laws of historical development, Marxism-Leninism was pure twaddle.” ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.isreview.org/issues/66/critthink-marxism.shtml

[nightrain]

1. knr. Thanks for posting this. Reminds me of earlier days....

[comtec]

2. I've always felt Marx missed some intrinsic realities about human nature

the main one being pure communism can't work, because it goes against human nature.
people NEED to feel compensated based on the amount of work and training they put into their profession.
The problem with Communism as the Russians did it was to ignore that a Doctor really does put that much MORE effort into his education than say, a brick layer.

They are both vital for a society...but the doctor spends a decade learning his craft... the brick layer takes about 5 minutes.

That both these people were paid the same in the soviet union was just a bad idea. Some work is worth more than others.

That doesn't mean the brick layer isn't compensated to a point where he can live and retire and take care of his family. It means that a doctor will drive a nicer car.

and to be honest i WANT my doctor to be happy. if he's happy I get better treatment than if he's sullen and pissy.

That aside however...

[pangaia]

3. the 5 minute brick layer

to 'comtec' Are you sure a bricklayer can learn his trade in 5 minutes? Have you ever tried to lay a 40' wall--perpendicular and plumb?
Just sayin'. ">))

[comtec]

6. well, that can be learned as you go

I certainly don't want my doctor learning as he goes...

but yeah I get the sarcasm :p =]

[tama]

8. Interesting

To me, a healer is someone who's wholly present in and open to each situation as new - not only capable of learning but knows how to learn, while a bookworm doctor looks up his books but never sees the patient...

[tama]

7. Not about "human nature"

"Homo consumericus" and other cultural conditionings really don't say anything about human nature - which is just as open and versatile as nature.

From anthropology we know that among all human cultures gift economies have been rather the norm and the greed economy is the exception - while it is of course the norm in all "civilized" cultures...

[tama]

9. Where Marx

went wrong is in socialism - ie. industrial workers taking over the capitalistic state... and creating conditions for the emergence of anarcho-communistic eutopia. The reality is that the socialist/industrialist usurpers just become corrupted in the process.

Revolution does not start and develop. Revolution is.

[tiny elvis]

4. most of the world is capitalist

and most of the world is poor - michael parenti

[OnyxCollie]

5. Marx considered capitalism to be in its "monopoly" stage.

I agree. It's gobbled up nearly every opportunity to make money.